Judging by the standards set by the current president, a very great deal indeed.
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You will always be foolish enough to believe your own bullshit or the Republican party's bullshit. Want a dog treat for it?
Adult Games Are Only The Beginning, Grand Theft Auto And Saints Row Reportedly "At Risk" Of Being Delisted By Payment Processors
ZOOM Platform has confirmed worries that the delisting campaign could extend even further, hitting hugely popular games like GTA.
www.thegamer.com
That "wait, you weren't supposed to say that" look on his face at 8:12 is absolutely priceless. A piece of shit being confronted with actual humanity.
I don't know about Kennedy, but I do know that a good number of Republicans (including a couple on these forums) are eager to see people die, because that means more people to feel smugly superior to.
"It couldn't have been us! It had to have been THEM!"
It does highlight that peoplemight believe something like that. It reenforces it, in fact, which is precisely why someone who opposes Trump would gain from doing it
The other day, the kerfuffle was that "The Trump White House Pressured the Smithsonian to Rewrite History"
"Genuinely scary": Smithsonian accused of "rewriting history" after quietly removing Trump from impeachment exhibit
The Smithsonian is under fire for quietly removing Donald Trump’s two impeachments from its presidential history exhibit.
www.dailydot.com
And then the actual story is that what they took down was a temporary placard that was getting worn down because they had mounted on the outside of the glass case, and they are making moves to update the contents of the case to reflect more recent events.
Smithsonian will again include Trump in impeachment exhibit in 'coming weeks'
The museum's decision to remove a placard referring to President Donald Trump from an impeachment exhibit sparked concerns over Trump's influence on the cultural institution.
If you heard that story and thought "Oh man, I totally believe that Trump would force the Smithsonian not to mention his impeachments", then your perception is worse than the person who recognized that it was almost certainly fake news.
In this instance with the website of the Constitution, there's not even anything for the administration to gain by taking those pages down. At least with the Smithsonian, you could imagine someone being embarrassed about being impeached. This one is just contrived, you have to first imagine that Trump and his people feel themselves opposed to those parts of the Constitution, then you have to imagine that they think that removing them from that particular website has some meaningful effect... it's implausible in lots of ways, and perhaps you can recognize that on thorough inspection, but getting slammed with these sorts of stories constantly, even if 99% of them are totally fraudulent, the barrage feeds people's perceptions of plausibility.
Yeah, literally gonna wait because such a banal reasoning turns out to be false 90% of the time.It does highlight that peoplemight believe something like that. It reenforces it, in fact, which is precisely why someone who opposes Trump would gain from doing it
The other day, the kerfuffle was that "The Trump White House Pressured the Smithsonian to Rewrite History"
"Genuinely scary": Smithsonian accused of "rewriting history" after quietly removing Trump from impeachment exhibit
The Smithsonian is under fire for quietly removing Donald Trump’s two impeachments from its presidential history exhibit.
And then the actual story is that what they took down was a temporary placard that was getting worn down because they had mounted on the outside of the glass case, and they are making moves to update the contents of the case to reflect more recent events.
Smithsonian will again include Trump in impeachment exhibit in 'coming weeks'
The museum's decision to remove a placard referring to President Donald Trump from an impeachment exhibit sparked concerns over Trump's influence on the cultural institution.www.nbcnews.com
If you heard that story and thought "Oh man, I totally believe that Trump would force the Smithsonian not to mention his impeachments", then your perception is worse than the person who recognized that it was almost certainly fake news.
In this instance with the website of the Constitution, there's not even anything for the administration to gain by taking those pages down. At least with the Smithsonian, you could imagine someone being embarrassed about being impeached. This one is just contrived, you have to first imagine that Trump and his people feel themselves opposed to those parts of the Constitution, then you have to imagine that they think that removing them from that particular website has some meaningful effect... it's implausible in lots of ways, and perhaps you can recognize that on thorough inspection, but getting slammed with these sorts of stories constantly, even if 99% of them are totally fraudulent, the barrage feeds people's perceptions of plausibility.
Even with Dems, such banal reasoning would end up being around 75% untrue
So when you talk about fraudulence, I completely understand. I will equally hold the claim that the placard is well worn as likely fraudulent. I've been lied to too many times, particularly by Trump
Literally blowing up satellites to make sure Trump's feelings aren't hurt
White House Orders NASA to Destroy Important Satellite
The White House has instructed NASA employees to destroy two major, climate change-focused satellite missions.
futurism.com
If we destroy everything that can tell us that things are bad, it proves that everything's good!Literally blowing up satellites to make sure Trump's feelings aren't hurt
White House Orders NASA to Destroy Important Satellite
The White House has instructed NASA employees to destroy two major, climate change-focused satellite missions.
Literally drawing up completely hypothetical plans for projects that could theoretically not be funded in next year's budget. Nobody ordered anyone to destroy satellites, just to make plans for how to move forward if funding for some projects were to get pulled. The NPR article your source has as its reference states "Draft budgets that Congress is currently considering for next year keep NASA funding basically flat", without explicitly mentioning that project as continuing or being cancelled, leaving enough ambiguity for someone at NASA to start making contingency plans, which could potentially include international cooperation or private funding, rather than destruction.
Nobody is blowing up those satellites. Nobody has stated plans to blow up those satellites. Nobody said they were even asked to plan to blow up those satellites. You should be able to see that headline and understand it's likely fake.
I mean, they got Superman.
Actor Dean Cain, who played Superman in the '90s, reveals he joined ICE
Dean Cain, who starred in \
www.usatoday.com
A Superman. A shitty and forgotten has been one who tries to remain relevant but has nothing to stand on, and still is is irrelevant. The coward is only doing this, because most people don't like him, outside of his little echo chamber, and the biatch couldn't handle the truth.I mean, they got Superman.
Actor Dean Cain, who played Superman in the '90s, reveals he joined ICE
Dean Cain, who starred in \
This a Blue Sky post, but you have to be logged in to view this person's page. More on the Visa/MC bullshit. Now cloud service are removing R18 works. I hope those artists have physical back ups via usbs or external drives. This is why I never trust cloud saving. You don't know what bullshit will happen or limits that are put in place later down the line.
krad @ zihark doujinshi (@kradeelav.com)
This author has chosen to make their posts visible only to people who are signed in.
bsky.app
Louis Rossman on the Visa/MC problem. Tried calling them, and got all of his audience to start calling them during his stream.
So people getting an infection induced side effect directly after getting a vaccine has literally nothing to do with the vaccine?
What stats did I use that were unrelated to covid? You make all these claims that make no sense or hold no water.
The stat I couldn't get was how many of the 234,000 hospitalizations for young people were severe and I said that is a much smaller pool. You, again, made some baseless claim that arrhythmia is like 40x higher with covid than myocarditis due to the vaccine in the same group. That is not at all true and you seem incapable of doing math. IIRC, JUST BASED ON HOSPITALIZATIONS, my number came out to like 10x more but again, that was just when doing the number for hospitalizations when the number should be based on only those that got severe covid. Your 2% (technically 1.8%) of people getting arrhythmia is from that group of young people that were not only hospitalized for covid but also had severe covid. Thus, it's not 2% of hospitalizations, it's a much smaller pool.
The fact that every country stopped recommending vaccines/boosters for this group means that I'm literally right. Why would countries stop recommending something that is giving people overall benefits?
Nope.
Myocarditis can be caused by various things. One of them is infection. Another, in exceptionally rare near-zero circumstances, is vaccination.
Vaccines are not infections. This is the horseshit misinformation that anti-vaxxers and cranks peddle, because they cannot grasp elementary basics of medicinal science.
You took the total hospitalisations in an age group, from all causes, and compared it to the total population in that age group. Then you tried to conclude something about covid from this.
The numbers given are rough, unavoidably. But I provided the basis for them all, and you haven't actually demonstrated a significant problem with them.
But it doesn't matter. Even when we took your numbers, the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine was still infinitesimally smaller. There's no way of getting around that. The risk you're whining about is simply negligible, while you want us to totally ignore greater risks altogether.
Any number of reasons. Usually low returns in a cost-benefit analysis.
You continue to conflate policy with science. Until you can comprehend the difference, you're not going to get off the starting block in any discussion about this.
I very much doubt that section was removed at the behest of Trump or any higher-up in the administration.
But certainly, they are opposed to the principles in that section. It states that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except in certain exceptional circumstances such as war or invasion. Trump did exactly what that section forbids.
Vaccines replicate an infection whether giving a lot less potent version of the virus/bacteria or the mRNA vaccines that just give you the spike protein of the virus. The former is still an infection and the latter may or may not be based on semantics. Regardless, it's recreating in your body the same (very similar) immune response as actually getting the infection, and that immune response is the cause of inflammation. It's pretty obvious that the covid vaccine causes quite a response because of how often people have to take off work after getting the vaccine (which is not that normal for most vaccines). Everyone at my last job had to take off work for both shots when they got vaccinated, I didn't myself but I also got the J&J shot because it was just the one shot.
I'm not sure if the number was just hospitalizations with covid or specifically from covid, but definitely covid related in some manner. I did the math assuming it was from covid and still nowhere near your 40x claim. And, AGAIN, a very small pool of young people that got hospitalized for covid had severe covid, which is where your 2% comes into play (it's 2% of those with severe covid that got arrhythmia).
You're also ignoring a vast percentage of this group already had covid before the vaccine was available and didn't gain any benefit from said vaccine.
The science is literally that they found the vaccine caused myocarditis at a higher rate than covid infections. And then the policy reflected that known science. You're effectively trying to gaslight me, this is very known science that you're arguing against.
No, its not. This is monumental ignorance of what vaccination is.
No, absolutely not. You explicitly acknowledged that they may or may not have covid, and you even said "I'll ignore that". You seem to have just forgotten what you posted. Go back and reread your own post.
Infections can still happen-- including severe ones-- in people who have already had covid. The risk of such a thing happening is much lower... and yet still many times higher than the negligible risk of myocarditis from the vaccine.
You. Are. Fearmongering. About. An. Utterly. Negligible. Risk. You have no fucking idea of relative risks; you cannot distinguish between policy and science; and you seem not even to grasp what vaccination is. For once in your life, acknowledge the limits of your knowledge.
No: the recommendations were adapted because the benefits-to-cost were minor. It was not due to the non-risk of mild myocarditis.
After all, only a certain kind of vaccine even had this myocarditis risk, and yet govs stopped recommending any vaccines as necessary for certain groups.
There are so many things that Trump said he would never do and then he did that very thing the next day
You cannot possibly say that no one in the administration will get rid of these satellites. Right now, the only thing that isn't getting Trump to turn on Ukraine and Gaza again is Melania who is helping Trump get out of his conspiracy brain mode. If he gets back into that mindset again, 2 destroyed satellites will be the least of our problems
I'm not even trying to be pedantic (in this case), I do not believe Trump has said anything about those satellites, at least not publicly. We have two pieces of information:
1) Scientists at NASA have been tasked with making termination plans for projects that could potentially lose funding.
2) Scientists not at NASA have been consulted by NASA employees about those satellites.
None of that information came from Trump, none of that information came from anyone directly tied to Trump, none of the sources are quoted as saying anything about destroying equipment, none of the sources are quoted as saying the White House told them to create these plans, all of it would be only used in response to the projects being unfunded, they have already begun soliciting potential funding or cooperation from elsewhere, and there is a very good chance it will all remain funded by Congress regardless.
It's not as if I'm telling you "Trump said he wouldn't do it" as an argument. To my knowledge, he's not said anything of the sort. I'm telling you what the primary sources said that generated the story in the first place.
