Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    40766
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. One other thing that I thought bizarre about Kirk-Newsom is that Kirk said two related things. First, he said Democrats (and he kept saying "Democrat party" where the addition of party dulls that a little bit but it's still that dumbass Democrat thing) didn't do long-form podcasts (that much is true). But he also said something to the effect that they lacked the intellect or flexibility to do so. And then went on to say there's no debate in the Democratic party. And went on to say there was healthy debate among Republicans. That was laughable bullshit. There was a takeaway from that though. Democrats have tons of internal debate, it's fractured as hell, it's just never resolved is the problem. Republicans get resolution in terms of whatever Trump wants. And it gets ignored when Trump flip flops on the resolution with the popularity wind and/or personal pique. He was very much a demagoguery enabler, if not a demagogue himself. Also very, very savvy about internet media. Related note. Just finished Careless People by accident. Trump's people manipulated Facebook in ways Facebook wasn't even aware of until after the fact, using its demographic tools to persuade and dissuade voters in the 2016 election. The Republicans have become extremely adept at using behind-the-scenes techniques to persuade and tilt the playing field in their favor, far far ahead of Democrats. Even still, without Trump's bizarre appeal to dumbasses, I don't think they are where they are.
  2. MIght want to revise that to Supreme Court. Because, again, the judicial branch is really the only thing standing in Trump's way. I don't love the Supreme Court. It has always been almost exclusively a political entity when it comes to political issues, ie Calvinball. They also happen to do regular, actual law. It just so happens that sometimes what people think is a nakedly political decision is really more of an application of law. Sometimes, more rarely, what appears to be a strictly or fairly "legal" decision is nakedly political. It has to be something of an accident, a lucky one for the right, that the Roberts court learned to use and abuse the shadow docket in favor of Trump/executive power. Because if and when these cases come up on the merits, and they do what they did on the shadow docket but with reasoning this time, shit's going to get even more unpleasant for them.
  3. I am intrigued by Oxbridge and that level of British education. From here, it seems to be more rigorous than US university education. But I can't really be sure. I work with Oxbridge educated lawyers on a pretty regular basis and they're sharp, no question, but I can't say moreso than US lawyers.
  4. https://www.adl.org/resources/report/murder-and-extremism-united-states-2022 One "flaw" I see is they are counting any murder committed by any extremist. Which literally fits the description, but is probably not what people expect that data reflects.
  5. Im me can't be anyone else. Kirk was sharp, no question. I think he was probably quite a savant on electoral politics. But on substantive ideas, he starts talking fast and spewing bullshit. Like on the trans issue, the words he said most were "chemical castration."
  6. He also spews a whole lot of bullshit. He does a more rational way than the usual TP or Charlie Kirk show, but its still bullshit.
  7. Im watching it. It is a reasonable discussion. Kirk has or had a habit of talking over Newsom. Which is something else I note from his interactions with others that I have seen.
  8. What strikes me after watching a few minutes of that is that they're not discussing issues, they're discussing electoral politics. I've been told that Charlie Kirk is kind and a sane debater. I have seen a lot of excerpts of the Charlie Kirk show and TP shit and there's no debate and little sanity. Also, I detest Newsom's hand gestures.
  9. First thing to note is that it is the Gavin Newsom show, not the Charlie Kirk show.
  10. I avoid video media mostly like the plague, especially that with an algorithm like YouTube, but I have never seen Charlie Kirk having a reasonable discussion with an opponent. I understand he and Newsom may have had one and that my exposure to him is mostly from here.
  11. That's really the scariest thing about a shit FBI. They are the domestic anti-spy, anti-terrorist organization with a substantial intel component. And I think these people are really suffering under the regime and the combined onslaught of Patel, Gabbard and the other clowns. Moreso than conventional law enforcement.
  12. That's the water faucet, it just goes south, to LA. But only if Trump turns it on.
  13. From a satellite, bro.
  14. This is an example of people attributing things to the FBI that aren't attributable to the FBI because of the movies or some shit. Let alone after the fact while some dude is narrating. I assume that is an enhanced review of a video from a stationary camera.
  15. I think the notion that the FBI is this amazing crime-fighting unit is way overblown at the best of times. They do have some amazing technologies and technicians that can help solve certain crimes (and created things like AFIS and its successor). And agents are a rung above most local cops. But that doesn't make them into superheros. One thing I think they are definitely better at is preparing a case for court/trial. Also: They are a national organization. Which means they get a lot of attention in things of an interstate nature that separate them from local cops. Take Luigi. He was arrested by Altoona cops because someone recognized him and dropped a dime. All that said, none of this political bullshit can be good for the FBI at any level. They're certainly not any better. I think they do see themselves as elite and generally above politics and I imagine morale is pretty low. I don't think the fact that Kash Patel is Director makes much of a shit, they come and go. But the Spanish Inquisition shit has got to be bad for them.
  16. So how are these brain geniuses supposed to know? I mean that's how they chose the fucking president.
  17. Let's do DIPLOMA FLOPOUT! Much better and more fun than paystubs or cell phones.
  18. Assuming it was actually a bolt action, there's very few "take down" variants that could be disassembled readily. That's some Jason Bourne shit. Not exactly non-existent, but rare and veeeeeery expensive.
  19. A bolt-action center-fire rifle is pretty inevitably going to have to be at least 30" long, more likely 34" or 36" or even longer. We all know most dudes that arent storks wear about 30-34" inseam. So the pants aren't going to be able to take that length, entirely. You'd probably have to stick it in your pants muzzle-down because there just isn't room for the stock in a pants leg, plus you'd probably want the stock around your waist to keep the whole thing from sliding out the bottom. Because the barrel and end of the forearm is relatively skinny, you could probably bend your knee a little bit, but that thing is going to be poking you in the guts pretty good and the more pronounced effect might be at the waist and in the thigh/hip. And yeah, it's going to "print" pretty well in the thigh and waist of the pants.
  20. That's another thing that defies credibility about that. If it's a public release, sure there's various reasons you wouldn't describe the markings. But it's not a public release, it's for LEO. So why would you resort to loaded language like "antifa" and "ideology"? Unless you were being a dipshit. Does law enforcement actually use the term "Antifa"? I would think not since it doesn't really describe anything. For LEO, you'd describe the markings as accurately as possible, e.g. "the cartridge casings were inscribed with the letters EABOD and a cartoonish animal, depicted below:
  21. Temporary and permanent paralysis, including of facial features is a common result of strokes. Often on one side of the body or the other, depending on which part of the brain was affected. Maybe even TIAs (mini strokes), not sure. There's been some reasoned speculation, but speculation nonetheless, that a) his leg swelling is related to thrombotic syndrome or blood clots, which might make some sense given its relatively recent and sudden appearance and b) he has had some TIAs transient ischemic attacks, or mini strokes that aren't usually debilitating, but could also relate to clotting disorders as well as cranial atherosclerosis and c) this led to his taking blood thinners which would be a very logical explanation for the hand bruises. TIAs will cause sometimes some temporary speech difficulties, balance problems, and various such things but don't know about the paralysis. They'd be a good explanation for some of his recent "behaviors" and his weekend "absence."
  22. Dems are just so anxious to take the high road in the face of this shit that they are debasing themselves, imo. So, the first one.
  23. Tabless meaning this: Bahaha, I was just reading his wiki bio and his CO in Iraq was none other than: Hooah? I do note that his Bronze Stars are NOT with V, so in the rear with the gear. He does have a CAB, apparently.
  24. Well, shit, I hadn't been keeping up when I said I though the SAIC in SLC was safe. Damn.
  25. Bullshit or not, it's highly reductionist. And the assertion that he thinks the current number of gunshot deaths and injuries is an acceptable cost for the benefit of an armed citizenry is 100% accurate. He never really identifies that benefit, though. And then he goes on to say that there will never be zero gunshot deaths. That's probably true, but no one was arguing for that. Classic reductionism.
×
×
  • Create New...