If someone appears to be repeatedly personal, lean towards patience as they might not mean offense. If you are sure, however, then do not deepen the problem by being negative; instead, simply place them on ignore by clicking the unhappy yellow face to the right of their name.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 3
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Culture" - nope, no problems.
baaaaaaa
No. of Recommendations: 3
No. of Recommendations: 8
Vote blue and bleed red. It’s true in every democrat run city and state.
Sorry, I do not click on sites known to promote Nazis.
I’d be happy to respond if you post a link to a site that doesn’t promote Nazis or if you take the time to explain your point.
Which I’m sure is incorrect.
No. of Recommendations: 11
Yeah, that pedo/rapist Trump is from blue state, NY!
"Donald was my closest friend for 10 years!" ~Jeffrey Epstein
"Jeffrey Epstein was a terrific guy, it is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side." ~Donald Trump, Vice President to Elon Musk
https://www.salon.com/2024/11/03/my-closest-friend...
No. of Recommendations: 3
Sorry, I don’t inform myself on current events. I prefer to live in my bluebubble.
To each his own, homie. Me, I think being blissfully unaware of current events is no way to go through life.
No. of Recommendations: 14
Let's check the numbers?...
The top 5 states with the lowest violent crime rates per capita are all blue:
Maine: Maine consistently has one of the lowest crime rates in the nation, with a violent crime rate significantly lower than the national average.
New Hampshire: New Hampshire boasts a very low crime rate, particularly for violent crimes.
Vermont: Vermont has a violent crime rate of 173.4 per 100,000 people, making it the state with the third-lowest crime rate.
Connecticut: Connecticut has one of the lowest crime rates among the New England states, with a violent crime rate of 181.59 per 100,000 people.
New Jersey: New Jersey has a violent crime rate of 195.36 per 100,000 people, which is the fifth-lowest nationwide.
The top 5 states with the highest violent crime rates per capita in the United States are all red but one:
New Mexico: 780.5 per 100,000 residents.
Alaska: 758.9 per 100,000 residents.
Arkansas: 645.3 per 100,000 residents.
Louisiana: 628.6 per 100,000 residents.
Tennessee: 621.6 per 100,000 residents.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/c...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_...
No. of Recommendations: 1
https://x.com/x/migrateGotta love it.
Vote blue and bleed red. It’s true in every democrat run city and state.
---------------------
That link seems to go to my Home current feed. Or do you follow John Cleese too?
No. of Recommendations: 2
Sorry, I don’t inform myself on current events. I prefer to be constantly lied to by my media sources so I don't have to face reality.
Hey, if we're going to change what people said (which is a form of lying) why not keep it up.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Hey, if we're going to change what people said (which is a form of lying) why not keep it up.
Honest posts with honest opinions will be quoted accurately. Snark, poop thrown against the wall and insults will be treated accordingly.
You folks control how it goes; be civil and receive civil in return. It’s really that easy.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Honest posts with honest opinions will be quoted accurately.
OK. And posts with lies will be pointed out, laughed at, and derided.
Can we agree that there is a difference between fact and opinion?
--Peter
No. of Recommendations: 2
Can we agree that there is a difference between fact and opinion?
--Peter
===============
Yes, but we need to acknowledge there is an ambiguous third category called subjective.
No. of Recommendations: 8
Yes, but we need to acknowledge there is an ambiguous third category called subjective.
Facts are never subjective. Opinions always are. There is no third category, only two. Facts and subjective opinion.
--Peter
No. of Recommendations: 3
Facts are never subjective. Opinions always are. There is no third category, only two. Facts and subjective opinion.
Facts often contain nuance and context.
No. of Recommendations: 5
Facts often contain nuance and context.
We don’t do “nuance”.
George W. Bush
No. of Recommendations: 2
Facts are never subjective. Opinions always are. There is no third category, only two. Facts and subjective opinion.
--Peter
---------------
Trump is the worst president ever! Which is it, fact or subjective?
No. of Recommendations: 7
Trump is the worst president ever! Which is it, fact or subjective?
That a group of historians came to that conclusion is a fact. That Nazis don't think he is the worst is also a fact.
The shade of his bronzer is subjective. Hope this helps.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Trump is the worst president ever! Which is it, fact or subjective?
Welllll…a bunch of exxxxperrrts said he was!
Fun game. So many targets to pick from!
No. of Recommendations: 7
Trump is the worst president ever! Which is it, fact or subjective?
Neither. It is opinion. An opinion that can be both supported and rebutted with various facts.
—Peter
No. of Recommendations: 2
Trump is the worst president ever! Which is it, fact or subjective?
FACT.
Next question?
No. of Recommendations: 2
Welllll…a bunch of exxxxperrrts said he was!
It is your opinion that they are experts.
No. of Recommendations: 8
Trump is the worst president ever! Which is it, fact or subjective?According to who specialize in Presidential history, yes, Trump is either the worst or in the bottom 3 or 4.
But facts, knowledge and expertise have no place in the MAGA cult. In that twisted world, Trump is the GREATEST POTUS of all time!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_...
No. of Recommendations: 10
But facts, knowledge and expertise have no place in the MAGA cult. In that twisted world, Trump is the GREATEST POTUS of all time!
Let's see if we can fix that for them. How about "Trump is the GREATEST POS of all time!"? Just a minor tweak.
Actually, it's a bit premature to make that statement. He hasn't got there yet, but he does seem to be trying. He hasn't taken all of the world down his dark hole yet. There are still glimmers of hope. And if it wasn't for the support of his minions, he'd have stayed just another reality TV star, where he belongs.
You can like his "policies", if you give him the benefit of the doubt and think he actually cares about anything other than himself, his bank account and the number of people talking about him, but what good are those policies in the world of hatred, greed, corruption and intolerance that he leads the way into? Character does matter.
He does seem to have mastered marketing, I'll give him that. He knows he can get away with anything among his supporters, and sets out to prove it. But that does not a great President make.
No. of Recommendations: 1
He hasn't taken all of the world down his dark hole yet.
I wonder: if Trump decided to wage actual military war on all of NATO, would it be a fair or unfair fight? Yes, I know this is a chicken little doomsday scenario that has about a 0.00001% chance of happening, but from a purely military POV, could the U.S. take on the combined forces of all NATO countries, either with conventional weapons alone or with nukes?
No. of Recommendations: 4
Simple... Everyone loses.
No. of Recommendations: 3
New York City is really giving off Thunderdome vibes now. A woman was burned alive on the subway today.SNIP
“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Jeff Carter said Zapeta is a Guatemalan citizen who entered the U.S. illegally after he had been previously deported to Guatemala in 2018.”
https://apnews.com/article/new-york-city-subway-fi...Another horrible death under the watch of blood on his hands, Joe Biden, the worst
president in America’s history.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Nukes? Yes. We could pretty much wipe out everyone.
Conventional? Less clear. We'd have to get our stuff and troops over there. Only one invasion was launched from US shores, and that was Operation Torch (North Africa). I'm not counting Panama or Grenada. NATO has enough power to seriously affect a similar operation, or even stop it. Losses would be too high.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Nukes? Yes. We could pretty much wipe out everyone.
Russia has a tad more than we do, but it isn't clear of the Russians have good maintenance. Corruption, ya know.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Corruption, ya know.
But we're going to do everything we can to catsup in the next four years.
No. of Recommendations: 6
But we're going to do everything we can to catsup in the next four years.
Yes, I hear it's been oranged.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Nukes? Yes. We could pretty much wipe out everyone.
But NATO has plenty of nukes too. Does the total really matter after a certain large number? Of course, a first strike that eliminated an enemy's arsenal would ensure "victory". As would systems to intercept and nullify any nukes in flight before they hit.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sure. We have more, but it is unrealistic to expect they wouldn't be able to launch some at us.
Of course, this is academic. The convict may not like NATO, but I doubt he would attack them. Nor would Congress likely approve such action.
