leadore @ leadore @lemmy.world

Posts

8

Comments

781

Joined

1 yr. ago

Two hours before he paused them he tweeted (or whatever you call it) "NOW is a good time to buy"

The 25th can be used for any reason, not just mental decay. We already know the magats are fine with the mental decay.

That's why they can't go with the obvious route of saying he has dementia issues--the cult wouldn't hear of that. But he can conveniently have a debilitating event or illness. Sure, the cult will have conspiracy theories, which is why they have to be sure to make it look plausible. But even if they have to resort to him having an "unfortunate accident", there's nothing the cult can really do about it, he'll be gone. He's just too unpredictable and uncontrollable for them to let him keep going rogue so much. Destroying the global economy and causing a worldwide depression is not part of their plans.

Gotta also consider the odds that he's not there for much longer anyway. The Project 2025/Heritage Foundation people got JD Vance in as VP as they wanted--he's one of them.

So I've been predicting since he won that the 25th Amendment will be used (if something else doesn't happen to him), probably not until after the midterms so Vance can still run for 2 more terms. They need to set up the right conditions before ousting him, which will be making him look physically incapable of continuing, like saying he's had a stroke or something. Congress/Senate has to believe it so they'll go along with it.

We’ve already had a shooter with a near miss. ... Probably a conservative who feels betrayed or person who is truly far left, (not just a progressive).

That person had been searching for info on the schedules of both Biden and trump. That along with some of the other info we learned about him makes me think it wasn't so much a partisan political motivation as the desire to become famous and/or take someone famous down on his way off the planet.

When thinking of calling the police on someone, you have to first ask yourself, "is this a situation where the significant chance of death to the person versus the amount of danger they pose to others is really a risk worth taking? Because there are definitely cases where the answer is clearly Yes. We don't want to let a victim get killed or raped or beaten by ignoring a threat, but we also don't want to get someone killed when what they're doing requires restraint, but not the death penalty.

But oftentimes the best course isn't clear. In a healthy society, we could call properly trained authorities worthy of being trusted to handle those situations, who would be trained on things like how to de-escalate, how to use only the amount of force actually necessary while ensuring people's safety, and who have been psychologically evaluated to weed out those with personality traits that would make them unsuitable for such a role.

But our police forces are not that--they are basically the exact opposite of that.

They probably read the person who lied/was mistaken in another post and automatically believed them. They're both getting lots of upvotes for saying it was a 12-yo child who called (it was actually a 19-yo). Some people are more into getting upvotes than being accurate.

Where did you get the idea the caller was a 12-year-old? It says in the article he was 19. The victim was 17.

Brad Andres, who took the video, has an auto shop nearby and told the AP he noticed a disturbance when he stepped outside to take a phone call around 5:20 Saturday. His 19-year-old son, Bridger, called 911 and reported it as a domestic dispute in a backyard.

“This was really traumatic for me to watch, for me and my son to be a part of,” Andres said. “My son was the one that called the 911 with the hopes of helping the family deal with the situation that was going on. He had no idea that what was going to transpire.”

How the hell does anyone at this point have no idea what was going to transpire?

It was projected from the beginning there would be short-term financial struggles, and here we are, but it’s necessary to stop getting fleeced by these other countries.

No it wasn't. Trump's whole campaign he touted how he was going to lower prices on Day One, end the war in Ukraine in 48 hours, stop the war in Gaza and blah blah blah. Only when he started fucking around with his on-again off-again tariffs and the undeniable resulting economic damage did they start throwing out the "there will be some temporary pain" messaging.

And the whole story that we were being "fleeced" by other countries is bullshit. He's so stupid. He went on and on about what a "stupid" trade agreement we had with Canada and Mexico but he was the one who negotiated that trade agreement, in his first term. But he apparently can't remember because of his dementia.

Very good, take large potato from bin.

I saw a couple people carrying smaller versions of it at the Handsoff event. 😂

Nope, they're still full-on MAGATizing out there. If they realize anything yet, it's only subconsciously and they'll never admit it, even to themselves.

I agree that the whole DEI issue arose from republicans controlling the narrative, but things have now moved beyond that.

The question now isn't "these companies have always been evil so why focus on DEI?", the question is "this is where we are--whose side are you on"? IOW one's stance on DEI has become a proxy for who you stand with--the oligarchs or the people.

Businesses/oligarchs getting rid of their DEI policies are doing it to prove to trump, and us as well, that they have now fully joined with him to destroy democracy and form the Oligarchy (along with the christian nationalist faction but that's another topic).

So it's a symbolic action (among others) they are taking to demonstrate that they are now part of the trump regime and consider themselves to be our rulers. Therefore these boycotts of their businesses is our symbolic action that we do not accept them as our overlords and will oppose them.

How many times am I going to have to post this? https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world

The red slash through a circle means "NO", although they have it going in the opposite direction there. I guess it doesn't really make a lot sense in that context either.

We had a really good crowd in my purple area of a red state! People of all ages. Lots of good signs. I need to make something good for the next one.

🙄

The problem is reaching that 3.5%--that's a lot more people than it sounds like, but that's what we'll need. Fortunately, the more people who show up, the more other people will join in, and the more people see them, the more will turn up. That's why the media doesn't want to cover the protests or at least not show footage of the crowds.

Are you willing to show up?

https://www.transcend.org/tms/2019/05/the-3-5-rule-how-a-small-minority-can-change-the-world/

Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.

There are, of course, many ethical reasons to use nonviolent strategies. But compelling research by Erica Chenoweth, a political scientist at Harvard University, confirms that civil disobedience is not only the moral choice; it is also the most powerful way of shaping world politics – by a long way.

Looking at hundreds of campaigns over the last century, Chenoweth found that nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to achieve their goals as violent campaigns. And although the exact dynamics will depend on many factors, she has shown it takes around 3.5% of the population actively participating in the protests to ensure serious political change.