Is it any wonder I think you are an angry #^&#^&#^&#^&.

when i ask why it’s ok for one person to inquire about this but a character flaw when i ask the same thing, that makes me an angry #^&#^&#^&#^&, gotcha. pointing out your demonstrable, unprincipled
hypocrisy makes me the bad guy.

makes sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Saying you didn’t vote for him doesn’t suggest you are not with him and agree with him .. and his madness
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim why are you going on and on over .this why are you
taking what he sad literally? To convince your self the button thing is real?

But 4 years of Trumps attacks and lies and just dump comments you and others always explained as hyperbole, While His handlers going on Fox and his press secretary telling Americans what he ment to say even though we heard him very clearly . On topics much bigger than who to call on in a press conference….
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The authoritarian personality has a strict superego, which controls a weak ego that is unable to cope with the strong impulses of the id. The resulting intrapsychic conflicts cause personal insecurities, which result in the superego adhering to externally imposed conventional norms (conventionalism), and unquestioning obedience to the authorities who impose and administer the social norms of society (authoritarian submission). The ego-defense mechanism of psychological projection arises when the authoritarian person avoids self-reference to the anxiety-producing impulse(s) of the id, by projecting the impulse(s) onto the "inferior" minority social-groups of the culture (projectivity), which are expressed by way of greatly evaluative and harshly judgemental beliefs (power and toughness) and rigid stereotypy.

The authoritarian person also presents a cynical and disdainful view of humanity, and a need to wield power and be tough, which arise from the anxieties produced by the perceived lapses of people who do not abide by the conventions and social norms of society (destructiveness and cynicism); a general tendency to focus upon people who violate the value system, and to act oppressively against them (authoritarian aggression); anti-intellectualism, a general opposition to the subjective and imaginative tendencies of the mind (anti-intraception); a tendency to believe in mystic determination (superstition); and an exaggerated concern with sexual promiscuity.

In human psychological development, the formation of the authoritarian personality occurs within the first years of a child's life, strongly influenced and shaped by the parents' personalities and the organizational structure of the child's family; thus, parent-child relations that are "hierarchical, authoritarian, [and] exploitative" can result in a child developing an authoritarian personality.[4] Authoritarian-personality characteristics are fostered by parents who have a psychological need for domination, and who harshly threaten their child to compel obedience to conventional behaviors. Moreover, such domineering parents also are preoccupied with social status, a concern they communicate by having the child follow rigid, external rules. In consequence of such domination, the child suffers emotionally from the suppression of his or her feelings of aggression and resentment towards the domineering parents, whom the child reverently idealizes, but does not criticize.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

here’s what liberals sometimes get, and sometimes don’t get, depending on who’s in the white house.

You can vote for a president and support him, without that meaning that you approve of every single thing he does.

When Bill Clinton was president, for 8 years, liberals said we should
ignore his many personal flaws and focus on policies. The reason they said that, is because looking at him that way, makes him look pretty good. I actually agree with that concept, i judge a president by the effects of his public policies. And that’s why I say Clinton was a good president.

But when republicans elect someone severely flawed, NOW we’re supposed to ignore the effects of his policies, and only talk about his personal behavior.

Can we just decide on one set of rules and apply them equally, do we all have to do a 180 every time the party of the sitting president changes?

Both sides do it. Republicans went on and on about growing deficits under Obama, but said nothing when trump spent like crazy.

Democrats said ( it was literally Joe Biden who said it) if a sitting Republican president near election tries to nominate a supreme
court justice, that the senate should block him. They actually called it the “Biden Rule.”. But when a democrat was president, it was horrible when republicans did EXACTLY what Biden said should be done. When a democrat is president, democrats suddenly said it was ok to appoint supreme court justices late in the term. Then when trump was president, the democrats did another full 180 and said a sitting president near election should not be able to nominate a supreme court justice. There’s only one conclusion…democrats believe it’s only ok when democrats do it.

Both sides do this constantly.

On this issue here, you are willfully failing to distinguish between supporting Trumps policies ( which i hate to break it to you, but the Gallup poll clearly shows that people liked), and his personal behavior, which nobody condones, except brain dead zealots like Sean Hannity.

Pick a set of rules, and apply them evenly. is that too much to ask?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

glad you are raising the level of discussion and not insulting anyone...that would be awful :rolleyes:

ummmmm...ok

ahhhh...have you watched biden at all?

hey he hasn’t called anyone a “retard” on this thread yet, let’s give him credit for that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete says asking about Biden’s instructions is “panicking”.

the guy who started 50 anti Trump threads a day and got banned from starting threads, is saying i am “panicky” because i asked a question.

I’m not panicking. I asked a question after observing something that many people thought was interesting.

Pete, if that’s “panicking”, how would
you describe your behavior here during the Trump years. Calm and rational?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

forgot about that :rotflmao:

but I’m panicking.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Successful
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...o-2020-2019-12

Trumps wins and failures as president really depend on your view of the policies. I’m not a pro life guy, I’m all for pro choice, so stacking the justices in my mind is a failure. His environment policies absolutely s*cked. Space force while sounding goofy at first is probably necessary to balance the potential threat from China primarily when it comes to protecting our property in orbit. Tax policy was wonderful if your a big corporation or one of the 1% ers, I’m really hoping Biden can avoid the filibuster and get his tax plan threw, it’s long overdue that these companies and rich pay their fair share. Not a lot of wins in my opinion, but I’m sure Trumps base feels otherwise.

I guess I could just troll here all day and make snarky comments:huh:

"Trumps wins and failures as president really depend on your view of the policies."

You can say that about every president, right?

"I’m all for pro choice, so stacking the justices in my mind is a failure. " You mean stacking the court with the conservatives he nominated? In my opinion, there's a lot of misinformation about what it means to be a liberal judge vs a conservative judge. Conservative judges (if they are fair minded, which not all are) won't always advocate for the conservative cause, they will advocate to adhere to what the law actually says, not what they wish the law said. During her confirmation hearings, Justice Barrett listed a few decisions she made which were contrary to her personal beliefs, but which were consistent with the constitution. I don't want the Supreme Court to outlaw abortion, I want them to do what the constitution says, and refer the question to the states (since it's not in the specified list of things that the federal government is responsible for). Send it to the states where it belongs, and then some states will allow it, some won't, depending on who the citizens elect. These things are not supposed to be decided by 9 people who aren't elected, and they're appointed for life meaning they aren't answerable to us.

"His environment policies absolutely s*cked."

I respect why you'd say that. I don't agree, which doesn't mean I don't care about the environment, because I do. But I notice two glaring things. First, none of the dire predictions made by this community have come true, which tells me their models are flawed, I don't know what other conclusion you could reach. Second, many of the most influential leaders of this movement have carbon footprints you'd expect from a small country - mansions, yachts, private jets). I don't think they believe what they claim to believe, and again I don't know what other conclusion you could reach. I say spend the money, do lots of honest research, and let's take reasonable steps to make things cleaner, but I don't care to hear about AOC's green new deal.

"Tax policy was wonderful if your a big corporation or one of the 1% ers"

A common Trump attack, but it's just not true, not to the extent they claim. I'm not a corporation, I'm not a 1%-er, I work in a cubicle (not a corner office) of a huge company, my wife stays home, we have 3 kids, we have literally lived paycheck-to-paycheck since my wife stopped working. Trumps tax cuts reduced my tax liability by about $250 a month. That loosened the noose around our necks. We used it to buy a camper, which my kids and I sleep in almost every night in the driveway all summer, and which we take on every vacation now. We wouldn't have bought it if not for those tax cuts. We can reasonably debate if less should have gone to the rich an d more to the poor, but you can't say it only helped the rich.

"long overdue that these companies and rich pay their fair share." Another common democrat rallying cry, but the truth is a bit murkier. If you actually do the math, and assume that all the rich make no changes and make the same income, and just pay the higher marginal tax rate, how much more revenue are we talking, compared to our current annual budgets?

I actually did a mathematical exercise once, I looked the total compensation of the Walmart CEO, and determined that if he worked for free and we gave his salary+bonus to all US workers, it worked out to something like $40 per year for each worker. The math doesn't work. There aren't that many rich people, and they aren't that rich, not enough to make a big difference. That said, I won't lose any sleep if we tweak those tax rates a bit as there's some unfairness in there, but it's absurd to think we can tweak the tax rates on people who won't know the difference, and solve any meaningful problem. It's more like a rounding error.

"Not a lot of wins in my opinion, but I’m sure Trumps base feels otherwise"

Not just his base. Gallup does a poll every 4 years during presidential elections, asks Americans if they're better off than they were 4 years ago. When they did the poll in 2020, during the pandemic, a record-number of Americans (58% I think) said they were better off. Gallup has done this poll for decades, and never before had more Americans said they were better off.

There's a reason for that. People liked the tax cuts, the insanely low unemployment (especially for blacks, which would have been celebrated as an historic win if any democrat president had pulled that off), his dealing with terrorists, his not getting us involved in questionable wars, his criminal justice reform (which liberals have wanted for decades, and which Obama could easily have done when the democrats controlled congress, but he chose not to), his talk of securing the southern border (his actions fell way short), the stock market records, his work in the middle east (we'll see how that plays out now), his giving companies incentive to repatriate trillions of dollars that had been banked elsewhere..

It's not just right-wing radicals that approve of those things. CNN and MSNBC won't ever say it, but those are populist ideas. That's why I believe that a likeable republican who advocated for those things but who didn't have Trumps endless list of character flaws, would be tough to beat - in normal times. The pandemic may be enough to make people put those things aside.

What have you done on this thread, other than exactly that? Whew...

Pointed out your hypocrisy and also showed how ridiculous and petty you are complaining about the president being told to call on one reporter first. Showed how your anger is so prevalent that every thread you comment on turns into a #^&#^&#^&#^& show.

I did not comment on how you're trying to imply that we should be looking at total covid cases since inception without looking at amongst other things, the density of the early States compared to the States with high covid counts now, before and after vaccine was developed and rolled out, or looking at before and after the Delta virus shows that you're probably a pretty crappy actuary if you use that same logic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh you pointed out my hypocrisy. but when i did the same exact thing to you, you called me
an angry #^&#^&#^&#^&. so as usual, with all things, it’s only ok when you do it.

what was my hypocrisy, exactly?

i never said we shouldn’t be looking at anything related to covid. please point to where i said not to look at something?

what i said, is that total death rate, is more important than death rate of the last week. do you disagree with that?

can you make a single post without completely misrepresenting what i said?

If i had even come close to saying what you claim i said, you’d be right, i’d be unemployable. Fortunately for me, i never came close to saying not to look at something. i was asking why the lefties never talk about inception to date data, and only talk about last two weeks. the answer of course, is that inception to date data makes liberals look les favorable then looking at the most recent data.

I’ll wait patiently for you to point to a post where i said that recent data is t worth looking at, at all? if you can’t do that, can you admit you lied?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

leftists don't seem any happier after they won....

:lama:

I love when people state the obvious thinking it makes them sound smart :kewl:

that's a solid days work...congrats :claps:

you saying something, isn’t the same as you “showing” something. hate to break it to you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Every US president has had staff plan just about every aspect of their daily routine and most certainly orchestrating press conferences.

The goal is not to keep score, a pandemic is not a game, the goal is to end the pandemic.

A simple analogy that most people would understand is job performance, claiming that the only thing that matters is quantity over time not current performance would not choose the most productive individuals. Most conservatives have issues with that in the case of education, where compensation is based on length of service and education but not performance.

In order to end the pandemic looking at totals will do little, some think it will work to achieve political ends, but it did not in the recent California recall election.

Risk levels & key metrics
Covid Act Now uses six key metrics to assess COVID across U.S. states, metros, and counties. Three of these—daily new cases (incidence), infection rate (RT) and positive test rate—assess a location's overall risk level. The other three—ICU capacity used, % vaccinated and vulnerability—reflect a location's ability to protect itself and recover from COVID. Below, learn more about each metric and how it is assessed.

How COVID risk is determined
A state or county’s overall risk level takes into account three metrics: daily new cases per 100K (incidence), infection rate (Rt), and test positivity.

Daily new cases, also known as “incidence” in epidemiology, represents the current amount of COVID in a community.
Infection rate is the direction and speed of growth. For instance, daily new cases may be low, but if infection rate is high, then we know that daily new cases will be high in the near future.
Positive test rate is a measure of our confidence in the underlying data. For instance, if daily new cases and infection rate are both low, but test positivity is high, then the lack of sufficient testing suggests that we are not capturing the true levels of COVID and both daily new cases and infection rate are actually higher than what is currently reported.
Each metric has the following levels: green, yellow, orange, and red. Incidence is the only metric for which there is a dark red, a fifth color we added after the third surge in winter 2020, in order to capture unprecedented case counts.

If a region’s daily new cases is green, then its overall risk level is green. For instance, if the daily new cases metric is green, but test positivity is yellow, the overall risk level is still green. Otherwise, a region’s overall risk level reflects the highest risk level across all three metrics. For instance, if daily new cases and test positivity are both yellow, but infection growth is orange, then the overall risk level is orange.

The end goal is for regions to reduce cases to zero, to fully reopen their economies, and for people to resume normal lives, unrestricted by COVID or containment measures.

This isn't really true, McConnel took Biden's remarks out of context and labeled it as a sneaky trick to give cover for his own actions. What Biden said was near an election you shouldn't nominate an extreme justice and create a partisan fight. Rather, he said the Whitehouse should work with the Senate Judicial Committee to ensure a smooth process.

Ya think maybe just maybe the unprecedented amount of Covid relief flowing from the treasury might have skewed that poll a bit? It was 56% by the way...

You call out Biden because you think he called a biased org. conveniently ignoring that's what Trump did with a crappy news organization like oan and what every other president in history has done. That's hypocrisy. Look at post 149 where you said you want to look at data from inception which is invalid since so many things have changed. Did you forget that or are you the liar?

So I'll do what you did a few times here. Why did you stay away for a few months? was it you bc you were so angry you couldn't take it anymore and then finally couldn't control yourself and had to come back and post?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The showing is every thread you comment in you end up insulting people and it turns into a #^&#^&#^&#^& show.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but your insulting people
isn’t an indicator of the same character flaw, because you get to decide who gets a pass for lobbing insults and who doesn’t. must be nice to have that authority.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I make an exception for you since that's all you do on this forum.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's one thing...weekend-at- biden's is a whole different level

oh good, he's going to teach us something...listen up everyone:rolleyes:

you do keep it colorful...

Paul: Jim said we shouldn’t look at many covid facts.

Jim: when did i say that, can you point that out? i think i even said please.

Paul: you liked trump
and don’t like biden, blah, blah blah.

I asked for proof of your claim that i said to ignore covid facts, and you immediately pivot to what i said about the press conference. so can we assume you admit i never ever said what you claimed i said?

as to the press conference, i said to you explicitly in this thread, that every president is likely to be more cordial to news organizations that are friendly to him. they all do that. no one expects any president to do
otherwise.

in this case, what was interesting is that Biden very clearly said ( not for the first time) that he was instructed to call on one specific reporter first.

if you can please post a video of trump saying the same
thing, I will be equally critical of trump doing it. i can do so, because i’m not a hypocrite.

I stayed away from this forum because of the language coming from the lefties. Pete went after TDFs daughters. Another lefty made issue of someone else’s wife having cancer. then you used, and adamantly defended the use of, the word retard. thinking that’s harmless, puts you in very very rare territory. it’s not good territory.

You lied when you claimed I said to
ignore statistics related to covid. You’re wrong when you say i’m hypocritical on my criticism of biden here, because as far as i know, trump didn’t receive instructions to call on specific reporters first. again, if you can prove trump did what biden did, i’ll
be equally critical. John R also thought it was interesting that Biden blubbered about needing to be instructed.

You use the word retard, then act like someone stole
your pony when anyone else uses harsh language. But you’re not a hypocrite, just me, even though i haven’t done anything hypocritical.

if trump did the same thing, and i said that was ok, that would be hypocritical. but i don’t do that, sadly for you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is so true...:rotf2:

he’s also acting like
i’m complaining that Biden didn’t call on foxnews first. i keep
saying, i commented on the fact that he said he was instructed to call on a specific person first. it appears to be a sign of his senility, that he can’t be trusted to decide on his own.

it’s not a huge deal, it was just an interesting observation.

Paul, you’ve also told
me “you don’t care about Pete’s harsh language, and you’re ok when you use harsh language, but you cry when dangles or i do it. but you’re not a hypocrite.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nm.

Edits damn the colors didn't come out
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device