Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    40786
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. I know he won't like it, and probably neither will you, but the judiciary in the form of the lower courts is about the only thing opposing and restraining Trump in any way these days.
  2. Yeah was gonna say this. And Mazda hypes their engine tech so much, you'd think going against trend with that displacement and configuration it would be more of a fire breather. And I was really focused more on the lo-po variant than the hi-po. You can allegedly use regular in the lo-po. Not sure I'd chance it. Also saw some things like timing chain at rear of block and some other curious choices that can make it a maintenance hassle.
  3. Reminds me of an experience I had with a stonk (nasdaq, so maybe not really a stonk) some years ago. Cousin tipped me off on said stonk on the eve of FDA approval for a drug that was effective at dosing iron to chronic kidney disease patients through dialysate. Seemed like a good drug within that sphere, with a need. And potentially elsewhere, as iron is notoriously difficult to achieve uptake in anemia and similar patients. So, I made a tidy sum on approval, but held back a few hundred shares to see where it went. Several analysts following the stock long and short, mostly analyzing efficacy and management, cash burn rate etc. Sales were not forthcoming. The analysts pontificated on why. The company tried to get CMS to approve it and put it in the "dialysis bundle," but failed. For all of this, none of the fucking analysts pointed out and I finally stumbled on it myself: 95% of dialysis patients in the United States are on Medicare. CKD/ESRD and ALS qualify you for Medicare regardless of your age. So, 95% plus of dialysates are purchased/paid for/approved by Medicare. If you don't get it in the bundle, it's never going to sell. Apparently, AMGEN getting EPO into the dialysis bundle was what kicked off their success. The stock has now been delisted. I lost a lot of faith in the "price discovery efficiency" of the stock market based on this. Other than general trends via funds, it's fucking gambling and no one but insiders know more than anyone else.
  4. Buncha fuckin 2%ers. But seriously, that's nice to know. I "hate" aggy, but it's really not fun actually hating aggy as represented by those troglodytes on Texas.
  5. Exactly. Reagan observed most norms and his popularity was within norms. Even the shit he got away with was "normal."
  6. I don't deny that some led to where we are now. I said that from the very outset. I do strenuously deny that "Reagan worship" was anything like Trump worship. Which was my point from the outset, you monomaniac.
  7. It's lived experience dude. For all those little anecdotes, Reagan Republicans were nothing like MAGAts. Nothing at all. As a frat boy in 1984 I can say you're wrong. Frat boys didn't give a shit about politics or really Reagan, nothing like this performative shit. The President of the Young Republicans or whatever was a fucking geek. Yeah sure, we mostly voted Republican if we could detach ourselves from the keg or the pussy long enough. Hell, back then, before the Republican takeover of Texas, a bunch of em were sons of powerful Texas Democrats. They sure as fuck didn't worship Reagan like Trumpists do. The most overtly political act was knocking down the shanty every couple of weeks, and that was more for shits n giggles than some kind of conservative tour de force.
  8. jamestalarico.com A metaphor invoking Christ, but only specifically mentioning a rabbi. It's time to start flipping tables. Pretty sure I like it.
  9. I seem to recall JE running out of subs back in the Ashley Shook days when we went 5 and probably shouldn't have. It wasn't quite that bad, but left us in a bit of a spot.
  10. A later thing, I'm quite sure. You're conflating subsequent idealization of Reagan with how it really was at the time. The point, again, being that Americans, particularly lower class ones, did not feel so completely abandoned and misused by the government during the Reagan era. I think the Clinton administration probably started to solidify working class not feeling well-served by the government. Also Obama, but in no small part because he couldn't get anything done other than Obamacare. And I'm not necessarily blaming either one, but corporate control of #bothsides took pretty serious hold post-Reagan. So there weren't cultists calling past Republicans RINOs and shitting on members of their own party who didn't tow the line. The free shit army didn't vote for Reagan. They did for Trump. Also, don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Reagan here. But there are vast differences between America now and America then, including among the electorate. He was popular, yes, but for conventional reasons, not the same kind of thing as Trump.
  11. Elaborating on the above, because it's possibly worthy of discussing, maybe moreso in the Democratic party thread. But when Reagan was elected, he was seen as more progressive than Nixon for example, although some considered him a Goldwater Republican. The latter may be more correct through the lens of history. But it's important to note, I think, that the American people at that point didn't feel broadly let down by their government. The 70s sucked shit economically and Carter got saddled with a lot of that, part rightly and part wrongly. But there absolutely was not the lower classes feeling as completely abandoned as they do now, and by #bothsides, as bozo relentlessly reminds us. We were still at the tail end of the post-war boom and petrodollar economics were just starting to assert themselves as a major issue. Yes, Reagan had a lot to do with letting them further down (trickle down) and with engendering distrust of government, but it wasn't the thing that it is today that has people so wildly voting against their own interest.
  12. Here's some actual footage of the incident. Almost without doubt a political plant. And the student in question is a dumbshit.
  13. Oh fuck off, the above is completely non-responsive to what I posted. Do you ever do anything besides repeat yourself? Gaslighting my ass. I rarely neg but you got one. I was alive and of voting age during the Reagan revolution, and while yes there are some things that trace a direct line, there were about zero of the cultish aspects of the Trump administration present in that era.
  14. All of that is no doubt true. But barring immigration inquiries, arrests, and detention based on ethnicity is really unmanageable because of the nature of immigration. Maybe you could take detention off the table so the inquiries have no "penalty," but that doesn't seem realistic either.
  15. J'Accuse! Fucking narc tattletale.
  16. Give her the kneeshooters? Possibly more seriously, roughly half of this country would seem to go along with a new country with a similar Constitution with a lot of the vagary and experimental shit taken out. The only problem might be wresting the territory from the existing US.
  17. It's ackhuly called legal analysis. Something SCOTUS, as well as surly, is notoriously short on. Maybe we should start to design a new country.
  18. You're right, never said it would. But that's what SHOULD happen with this.
  19. Ie Robert Malone.
  20. For a bit of perspective on this, we've always known there is a lower threshold than probable cause for immigration-related stops as the lawdogs spent hours telling VAPA, years ago. This low? Maybe not. And, the reason ethnicity is prohibited for criminal stops is that ethnicity is an invidious (extremely unfair) indicator of criminality or criminal activity in most cases, the exception being when the suspect has been identified as someone of a particular ethnicity. But, ethnicity is kind of an unavoidable criterion when it comes to immigration. Also, legally, immigration/removal/deportation is not criminal so the protections against unreasonable search and seizure are lower because the prosecution apparatus is not triggered. I think that should be rethought, though, and it's not whether the criminal apparatus is invoked, but whether the government seeks to detain whether civilly, or criminally, or otherwise. THAT is the deprivation of liberty we're concerned with. not whether a criminal proceeding is invoked, because the net result is the same. That's not to say that I agree with any of this shit, but there are a lot of historical SCOTUS, including liberal ones, that would have come to a similar "conclusion."
  21. I think this points up a problem we have as a nation and that is that a lot of MAGAts don't identify as Republicans or Trump as a Republican. They view both Rs and Ds as part of the establishment that has fucked them over. They view Trump as outside the establishment. And until and unless Ds come up with some kind of antidisestablishmentarian candidate, they'll never get MAGAt votes. Then again, the R candidate that follows Trump probably won't get their votes, either.
  22. And young men are no more demonized than white people generally.
  23. Boomers win that in a landslide. If for no other reason than there are so damned many of them. And what boomers did to GenX makes what GenX did to their children pale by comparison.
  24. And that shit's in an industry database anyway.
  25. Being the biggest asshole on a site by and for assholes is an accomplishment.
×
×
  • Create New...