2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
And they are constantly revised and argued about. Or... a never ending battle.
"That's my water"
"No, it's my water"
Those interstate compacts are a mess right now. Few are as contentious as water rights.
so given Nevada and Colorado don't nessarily agree about something we just let decide people in NYS and Florida for them. hm no
MANY! more water sources are in precarious positions than the Colorado river. Without any research Imma gunna go out on a limb and say the vast majority of states have trans-water issues.
I don't think it's really critical thinking to extrapolate from someone echoing a couple talking points that they are a secret agent for a foreign government. This would mean almost all of our elected officials were agents of foreign governments, in some cases multiple ones.
Nor to believe so because somebody else "seems too." Least of all when that person is a comic book villain like John Bolton.
To state the obvious, if someone like Tulsi was a Russian agent investigating her and proving it wo
Well, let me extrapolate my uncritical thinking skills then...
The last time we had a worldwide rise in fascism via fake populism was the 40's. At that time in America, we had at least 11 members of congress who later became verified agents / assets of the Nazi Party. Senator Lundeen being the most notable, but also - Hamilton Fish III, George Tinkham, John E. Rankin, Burton K. Wheeler, Gerald Nye, Jacob Thorkelson, Stephen A. Day, Clare Hoffman, Robert Rice Reynolds, William P. Lambertson.
All of these representatives shared the same qualities. They were non-interventionist, who took sympathetic positions to Germany, even when it didn't make sense to. They also had colleagues who called them out on this.
So my uncritical thinking skills begin with a question... we're in a similar time in history, we know Russia has been meddling w/ our elections and have a stated objective of dismantling western democracies. That means Russia likely has agents in our Government, who are the most likely suspects?
I'm going to start w/ the non-interventionist that are making public statements that are sympathetic to Russia's position, even when it doesn't make sense to.
Tulsi Gabbard is a non-interventionist. CHECK
Gabbard has made several public statements sympathetic to Russia's position. CHECK
Gabbard has had colleagues accuse her of being a Russian asset. CHECK
Public Statements and actions:
In March 2022, Gabbard claimed that the U.S. was funding biological laboratories in Ukraine, suggesting they were conducting research into dangerous pathogens. This assertion mirrored Russian disinformation narratives
Gabbard has argued that NATO's expansion and the U.S.'s refusal to rule out Ukraine's membership provoked Russia's actions. She stated that the U.S. and NATO ignored Russia's security concerns, contributing to the conflict.
Gabbard has expressed opposition to economic sanctions on Russia, arguing that they would harm American citizens through increased energy prices and could escalate tensions.
In 2017, Gabbard met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a close ally of Russia. This meeting was criticized as lending legitimacy to Assad's regime and, by extension, to Russian support for him.
She has criticized U.S. media and government narratives regarding Russia, suggesting that they are not so different from Russian state-controlled media in terms of suppressing dissenting views.
Colleagues statements:
Hillary Clinton: In October 2019, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested that Gabbard was being "groomed" by Russia to act as a third-party candidate, implying she was a "Russian asset." Gabbard vehemently denied the accusation and filed a defamation lawsuit against Clinton, which she later dropped.
Mitt Romney: In March 2022, Senator Mitt Romney criticized Gabbard for her comments about U.S.-funded biological laboratories in Ukraine, labeling her remarks as "treasonous lies" that could aid Russian propaganda. While he did not explicitly call her a "Russian asset," his statement implied a serious accusation.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz: In November 2024, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz stated on MSNBC that she considered Gabbard "likely a Russian asset," citing Gabbard's foreign policy positions and past statements.
Senator Elizabeth Warren: “Do you really want her to have all of the secrets of the United States and our defense intelligence agencies when she has so clearly been in Putin’s pocket?” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said on MSNBC. “That just has to be a hard no.”
John Bolton: “Gabbard, like Gaetz, is like a hand grenade ready to explode,” former Trump national security adviser John Bolton said, speaking of Matt Gaetz, the former Florida congressman who is Trump's pick for attorney general. “Republicans who throw themselves on those grenades for Donald Trump are risking their own personal reputations and places in history.”
It's actually much more difficult to prove someone is an asset of a foreign country, than you'd think. Getting an actual smoking gun is generally difficult. I can guarantee you that the intelligence community has an ongoing investigation. IT's doubtful we'll ever get a conclusive answer, especially if she's about to head that department. lol
I have no idea if she's a Russian asset, but if I'm going to answer my first question, who are the likely suspects, she's near the top of my list. I can't answer why she's made a public statement, as a supposed non-interventionist and peace candidate, to validate a critical and easily disproven Kremlin talking point used to justify invading Ukraine. It just makes zero sense. I'm left with either she's a Russian asset or she's really stupid. Either way, is Gabbard the person you want running your national INTELLIGENCE?
To your last point, she did try and walk back her comments. But it was clear what she was doing, and because she was so heavily called out on this, she changed her narrative to stating she was concerned about pathogen labs, and their security. Opps, did I accidentally make public comments repeating Russian talking points, without thinking more critically about what that might mean. Right... I think more uncritical thinking skills are needed to believe that one than not. 😉
Freakdad, we get it.
Trump was a russian agent until he became hitler - all the while being the most racist person on earth yet he managed to manipulate more black and hispanic to vote for him. Vance humps couches and women when not invited. kavanaugh got drunk once in college and hooked up with a girl who was also drunk. gaetz paid a woman for sex and he takes drugs. musk wants to allow people to say whatever they want online.
We completely understand that you think everyone on the right is evil. You don't need to use so many words to explain who else on the right is also evil. Next time just saw x is a bad boy or girl and move on.
Freakdad, we get it.
Trump was a russian agent until he became hitler - all the while being the most racist person on earth yet he managed to manipulate more black and hispanic to vote for him. Vance humps couches and women when not invited. kavanaugh got drunk once in college and hooked up with a girl who was also drunk. gaetz paid a woman for sex and he takes drugs. musk wants to allow people to say whatever they want online.
wtf his post couldn't be further than your claim!
what the hell are you on lol?
RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA
Spoiler
RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA
certainly it isn't to protect others as that has been proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, not to be the case, thanks to the quirks in spanish and italian school rules.
In italy and spain the under 6 weren't mandated masks in schools while the over 6 were.
If masks protected third parties from infection, elementary school teachers would have been infected dramatically more often than pre-elementary school teachers in Spain and Italy.
That didn't happen so we are absolutely certain wearing masks don
How many people died because they wore a mask? How many died because BigFatStupidRushLimbaugh or some other right wing media zero, enabled by people like you, convinced folks to be scared of the vaccine?
How many people died because they wore a mask? How many died because BigFatStupidRushLimbaugh or some other right wing media zero, enabled by people like you, convinced folks to be scared of the vaccine?
You mean the gene therapy drug that turns cells into spike protein factories? Yeah no reason to fear that.
You mean the gene therapy drug that turns cells into spike protein factories? Yeah no reason to fear that.
Great work. People are dead because of this stupid fear. But they likely were Trumpers, so whatever. Natural selection playing out.
Help me understand the fear of wearing a mask.
Very few clearer indications of ignorance than calling it "gene therapy."
Just stop.
Read and learn.
[quote=NHS England’s Genomics Education Programme]
Gene therapies involve making deliberate changes to a patient’s DNA in order to cure or alleviate a genetic condition. This can be by adding a functional copy of a gene, [or] disabling a gene that makes a faulty product or changing gene activation.
The mRNA from the vaccines does not enter the cell nucleus or interact with the DNA at all, so it does not constitute gene therapy.
Gene therapies can have long-lasting effects because they permanently change the cell’s DNA, with these changes being inherited by any daughter cells that result if the cell divides. In contrast, mRNAs are always transitory and are not inherited by daughter cells, making them ideal for use in vaccines.
[/quote]
Just stop.
Read and learn.
Unfortunately reading this isn't necessarily going to change anything. One cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
Speaking of reading and learning.
mRNA: Vaccine or Gene Therapy? The Safety Regulatory Issues
Although the principle of action of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines corresponds to the definition of gene therapy products (GTPs), they have been excluded from the regulation of GTPs by the regulatory agencies (US-FDA and EMA) and subjected to the regulation of vaccines against infectious diseases. No scientific or ethical justification is given for this exclusion, and there remain inconsistencies in the regulations. For example, under European and French regulations, a vaccine must contain an antigen, which is not the case for mRNA vaccines. These products could be considered “pro-vaccine”. In fact, mRNA vaccines do not contain an antigen, but make the vaccinee produce it. They can therefore be classed as pro-drugs or “pro-vaccine”. Special regulations should be drawn up for this type of product, insisting on potency controls, i.e., the quality, quantity, duration and sites of expression of the antigen of interest, as well as the toxicity of this antigen. As proposed at the start of 2020, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein interacts with the renin-angiotensin system [101,102,103] and has a recognized toxicity that was known since before COVID-19 [104] and has been confirmed since [105,106,107,108].
Speaking of reading and learning.
Cool misguided opinion of one person, dude!
Author Helene Banoun's list of credentials: "Independent Researcher." It also says nothing about whether it qualifies as gene therapy, only if it should be regulated under the same set of guidelines. It's noteworthy that it's NOT, and she just disagrees with that.
So...like I said, not gene therapy. Reading and learning would be cool for you to do though, so yeah, I do agree with that.
Gorgo what is your current masking routine? 2x for flights? 1x for grocery stores? Just trying to get a gauge for how crazy you are.
