2020 US Presidential Election

[Born To Slay]

All of your points are well-reasoned. Really, I agree with you on almost everything, except one big point. I think you are right that the medical cost is rather clean, well set up, and efficient. I just think if it becomes legal, there's too many extra expenses to eliminate a need for a black market on competition alone. The only way this wouldn't be the case is if all of the fine attention to detail and safety was cut, but that then undermines your point. Also, your point about tax revenue sort of undermines your point about a competitive low cost.

I'll be honest, I don't know nearly enough about the chemistry or production to really crunch all of the numbers to see how correct I am. If I'm wrong and that a black market would never compete on any level, then I may change my position. I don't think I'm totally wrong about this though. Even something as harmless as marijuana is subject to high taxes and regulations. Marijuana is one of the least dangerous substances that exists. Heroin is a whole different beast. I believe black markets would still exist and thrive.

What would the extra expenses be if it were to be legal? Say you wanted to legalize Vicodin for recreational use for instance. What would stop a company from selling it at $1.25 a pill when the illegal market is selling it at $5? I think the same would apply to heroin. Drugs on the black market that are also prescription are always dramatically cheaper. Diazepam (not an opioid but still) is 5 to 15 times more expensive on the black market than a legal prescription.

On the tax revenue portion, I'm not saying we should heavily tax it. I think the sin taxes on cigarettes actually help create a black market and I think they're too high, but since the black market prices are consistently more expensive, there is room to tax while still leaving the price below what people pay in the black market.

I'll use Vicodin as an example. Let's say we wanted to legalize it for recreational use. Pharmacies currently sell it for $1.25 a pill. Now we'll apply a 20% sales tax (higher then any sales tax in any state). That'd raise the price of the pill to $1.50. It's competition is a pill on the black market for $5. Even with the tax, it's obvious what your Best Buy is.

I think the same would apply to heroin. Heroin is chemically similar to drugs like Vicodin and morphine, so I see no reason why the price would be dramatically different if a pharmaceutical company made it legally.

I do understand my position is radical, I actually think every drug should be available OTC.

 

[Luman]

Here is some good news, for a change. Black Loves Matter in Los Angeles is launching a campaign against police unions. While I am against defunding the police, in most cases, there is a very strong need to eliminate the police unions once and for all. Biden, who is deeply indebted to labor unions, will likely not support this.

Black Lives Matter-L.A. launches campaign against law enforcement unions

 

[Born To Slay]

Here is some good news, for a change. Black Loves Matter in Los Angeles is launching a campaign against police unions. While I am against defunding the police, in most cases, there is a very strong need to eliminate the police unions once and for all. Biden, who is deeply indebted to labor unions, will likely not support this.

Black Lives Matter-L.A. launches campaign against law enforcement unions

This is good news, maybe someone in LA's BLM read one of your old posts in this thread lol.

And yeah, Biden likely won't lead the fight in this but hopefully they can pressure him. He's also indebted to BLM and the African American community in general.

 

[Zugzug]

What would the extra expenses be if it were to be legal? Say you wanted to legalize Vicodin for recreational use for instance. What would stop a company from selling it at $1.25 a pill when the illegal market is selling it at $5? I think the same would apply to heroin. Drugs on the black market that are also prescription are always dramatically cheaper. Diazepam (not an opioid but still) is 5 to 15 times more expensive on the black market than a legal prescription.

On the tax revenue portion, I'm not saying we should heavily tax it. I think the sin taxes on cigarettes actually help create a black market and I think they're too high, but since the black market prices are consistently more expensive, there is room to tax while still leaving the price below what people pay in the black market.

I'll use Vicodin as an example. Let's say we wanted to legalize it for recreational use. Pharmacies currently sell it for $1.25 a pill. Now we'll apply a 20% sales tax (higher then any sales tax in any state). That'd raise the price of the pill to $1.50. It's competition is a pill on the black market for $5. Even with the tax, it's obvious what your Best Buy is.

I think the same would apply to heroin. Heroin is chemically similar to drugs like Vicodin and morphine, so I see no reason why the price would be dramatically different if a pharmaceutical company made it legally.

I do understand my position is radical, I actually think every drug should be available OTC.

The following study looks into the question of "Is lack of purity the main reason for overdoses?" They conclude that the answer is no. Rather, that more access leads to more overdoses. The biggest method that leads to overdose is injecting. They found that in Switzerland and the UK, injections deaths are minimized in controlled settings.

The issue, to me, is that people always have the tendency to push limits. This is extremely dangerous outside of the care of a medical professional.

Something I've accepted for a while now is that the general public is some combination of stupid or reckless. My friend who overdosed was the latter, as he was very bright. Actually, his intelligence almost created a false sense of confidence (not only in himself, but from his friends as well). I was never that concerned with him because he was a bright medical student. I just assumed that he would know all of the pitfalls. Truthfully, he probably did, but it goes to show that unstable it is to take heroin.

In the case of absolute need (like pain), maybe there should be more emphasis on affordable ways to take it in controlled settings. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the issue with doctors causing the opioid epidemic that they were reckless?

As far as price goes, there are several things to consider. Most importantly, the market is fueled by repeat customers. As such, a black market doesn't need to beat the OTC price by that much to win out. Also, retail vendors would need a license, insurance, enough experts on hand to advise. They would have to pay taxes from distributors. On that same note, distributors would have their prices greatly amped up from all of the FDA regulations.

Also, how about the obvious issue of an 18 year old buying it, coming outside and giving it to their 12 year old brother who overdoses? It's bad enough that this can happen from prescriptions, but that is already being condemned with the clear message that it's out of hand. Legalizing just makes that worse.

 

[FGG]

The following study looks into the question of "Is lack of purity the main reason for overdoses?" They conclude that the answer is no. Rather, that more access leads to more overdoses. The biggest method that leads to overdose is injecting. They found that in Switzerland and the UK, injections deaths are minimized in controlled settings.

The issue, to me, is that people always have the tendency to push limits. This is extremely dangerous outside of the care of a medical professional.

Something I've accepted for a while now is that the general public is some combination of stupid or reckless. My friend who overdosed was the latter, as he was very bright. Actually, his intelligence almost created a false sense of confidence (not only in himself, but from his friends as well). I was never that concerned with him because he was a bright medical student. I just assumed that he would know all of the pitfalls. Truthfully, he probably did, but it goes to show that unstable it is to take heroin.

In the case of absolute need (like pain), maybe there should be more emphasis on affordable ways to take it in controlled settings. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the issue with doctors causing the opioid epidemic that they were reckless?

As far as price goes, there are several things to consider. Most importantly, the market is fueled by repeat customers. As such, a black market doesn't need to beat the OTC price by that much to win out. Also, retail vendors would need a license, insurance, enough experts on hand to advise. They would have to pay taxes from distributors. On that same note, distributors would have their prices greatly amped up from all of the FDA regulations.

Also, how about the obvious issue of an 18 year old buying it, coming outside and giving it to their 12 year old brother who overdoses? It's bad enough that this can happen from prescriptions, but that is already being condemned with the clear message that it's out of hand. Legalizing just makes that worse.

It wasn't as much doctors being reckless as a few doctors being legal drug dealers and getting them to people to either use or sell on the black market. I highly recommend the Netflix Documentary Series "The Pharmacist" as they go into all this.

Let me ask you a hypothetical. If there was a new highly contagious and more rapidly deadly "super AIDS" do you think making unprotected sex with strangers illegal would be an important step in combating it? I personally think education and making preventative resources available is the only thing that would help and legal status wouldn't change behavior.

 

[Born To Slay]

The following study looks into the question of "Is lack of purity the main reason for overdoses?" They conclude that the answer is no. Rather, that more access leads to more overdoses. The biggest method that leads to overdose is injecting. They found that in Switzerland and the UK, injections deaths are minimized in controlled settings.

The issue, to me, is that people always have the tendency to push limits. This is extremely dangerous outside of the care of a medical professional.

Something I've accepted for a while now is that the general public is some combination of stupid or reckless. My friend who overdosed was the latter, as he was very bright. Actually, his intelligence almost created a false sense of confidence (not only in himself, but from his friends as well). I was never that concerned with him because he was a bright medical student. I just assumed that he would know all of the pitfalls. Truthfully, he probably did, but it goes to show that unstable it is to take heroin.

In the case of absolute need (like pain), maybe there should be more emphasis on affordable ways to take it in controlled settings. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the issue with doctors causing the opioid epidemic that they were reckless?

As far as price goes, there are several things to consider. Most importantly, the market is fueled by repeat customers. As such, a black market doesn't need to beat the OTC price by that much to win out. Also, retail vendors would need a license, insurance, enough experts on hand to advise. They would have to pay taxes from distributors. On that same note, distributors would have their prices greatly amped up from all of the FDA regulations.

Also, how about the obvious issue of an 18 year old buying it, coming outside and giving it to their 12 year old brother who overdoses? It's bad enough that this can happen from prescriptions, but that is already being condemned with the clear message that it's out of hand. Legalizing just makes that worse.

But pharmacies already have all those regulations and they still are able to sell the drug far below the black market value.

The study you posted was interesting and having controlled settings where people can go wouldn't be a bad idea. We already have this for alcohol, we could have drug bars where people go and do drugs. These bars would likely have Narcan available on site. While these places wouldn't be the only place you could buy drugs, I do think them being readily available for lonely drug addicts would be helpful in keeping deaths down. Because to be clear, every scenario we talk will involve deaths unfortunately, the goal of public policy to minimize deaths.

As far as repeat buys go, I don't see think that'll be a big problem because by the time drugs are legal, it'd be commonly known that legal sellers are far cheaper then black market sellers.

As far as the 18-year-old giving it to a 12-year-old, that'd be just as illegal as it is now. I don't see how legality will make that more prevalent. If you are so morally bankrupt that you choose to give a 12-year-old heroin, the law ain't gonna stop you. If drugs were legalized, I'd make the age 21 unless someone 18 or over gets a doctor to sign a waiver saying they can do drugs.

 

[Luman]

This is good news, maybe someone in LA's BLM read one of your old posts in this thread lol.

And yeah, Biden likely won't lead the fight in this but hopefully they can pressure him. He's also indebted to BLM and the African American community in general.

I hope they do pressure him. They demonstrated, some rioted, to get him elected, and I fully expect that they will find he will not support the abolition of police unions, no matter how many people the unionized cops unjustly kill.

 

[just1morething]

Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakato seems really impressive on CPAC. I had never seen her before. Here she is with George Stephanopolis months ago. She is so cool headed.

 

[FGG]

Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakato seems really impressive on CPAC. I had never seen her before. Here she is with George Stephanopolis months ago. She is so cool headed.

She's the one who opposed any kind of a COVID-19 mask mandate for SD. That's very much not "level headed" imo. She was clearly trying to change to topic off of how her state is particularly failing for COVID-19 control...

 

[just1morething]

She's the one who opposed any kind of a COVID-19 mask mandate for SD. That's very much not "level headed" imo. She was clearly trying to change to topic off of how her state is particularly failing for COVID-19 control...

She did way better than Gov. Cuomo who wouldn't even allow the Hospital ship Mercy to assist just because Trump offered it. And then he sends these sick people back to the nursing homes which was ludicrous.

You always want to side with bad things whether it's abortion rights or states doing well without shutting down. I know someone that had an abortion and she regrets it. I seen a man on Focus on the Family that regretted funding an abortion when he was young.

 

[FGG]

She did way better than Gov. Cuomo who wouldn't even allow the Hospital ship Mercy to assist just because Trump offered it. And then he sends these sick people back to the nursing homes which was ludicrous.

You always want to side with bad things whether it's abortion rights or states doing well without shutting down. I know someone that had an abortion and she regrets it. I seen a man on Focus on the Family that regretted funding an abortion when he was young.

No offense but I'm starting to suspect you don't actually read my posts. Like at all.

I suggested a number of things that would actually *reduce* abortion numbers and asked you some really basic policy questions like how in the case of illegal abortion should women be punished? Crickets. You can't make something illegal on the books without a punishment. So this is a super basic question.
And btw Focus on the Family doesn't at all address that either.

You also didn't answer why pro-life people oppose measures like sex education and contraception coverage that have been shown over and over again to reduce abortion. To me, that completely cheapens the pro-life movement because it makes it seem like their primary concern is the desire to flag wave living in a country that says they are "pro life" even if they are unwilling to do any preventive measures like promote contraception and the morning after pill.

Also, I never defended Cuomo btw (another reason i am convinced you haven't actually read my posts) and even agreed that he's clearly doing a shit job on COVID-19.

I think that's a major difference between Trump conservatives and others, though. Others are willing to criticize people on their "side" (like seriously fire Cuomo, he's a Democratic Trump and he sucks) and Trump supporters get uber defensive.

 

[just1morething]

You also didn't answer why pro-life people oppose measures like sex education and contraception coverage that have been shown over and over again to reduce abortion. To me, that completely cheapens the pro-life movement because it makes it seem like their primary concern is the desire to flag wave living in a country that says they are "pro life" even if they are unwilling to do any preventive measures like promote contraception and the morning after pill.

Planned parenthood is known more for abortions than sex education and providing contraceptives. The profit is in abortions unfortunately. I'm all for the prior two mentioned.

 

[FGG]

Planned parenthood is known more for abortions than sex education and providing contraceptives. The profit is in abortions unfortunately. I'm all for the prior two mentioned.

I'm glad, and that makes it much more obvious to me that you really genuinely (not flag wavingly) care about this issue. Reducing unplanned pregnancy will obviously definitely reduce abortion.

I 100% don't think sex education is something that should start at a medical clinic, though, PP or otherwise. It's kinda too late at that point. It should be taught in health class starting around 12 or 13.

Same with contraception. The birth control and Morning After pill should be universally covered by insurance. From what I understand, Planned Parenthood does more of the birth control that you need a doctor for like Norplant, Depo Shots and IUDs at a much cheaper rate. It doesn't have to be done at Planned Parenthood, though and if insurance were required to cover it and if everyone had access to healthcare, no one would need to go to PP for those things in particular.

PP also does things like HIV testing, especially to underserved areas and there is a need for that too but again if those things were funded elsewhere, they wouldn't have to be done necessarily at PP.

You still didn't answer my first question though .

 

[Lilah]

Trump is expected to give CPAC speech tomorrow at approx. 3:40pm EST.

When is Trump at CPAC and how can I watch?

 

[Born To Slay]

I'm glad, and that makes it much more obvious to me that you really genuinely (not flag wavingly) care about this issue. Reducing unplanned pregnancy will obviously definitely reduce abortion.

I 100% don't think sex education is something that should start at a medical clinic, though, PP or otherwise. It's kinda too late at that point. It should be taught in health class starting around 12 or 13.

Same with contraception. The birth control and Morning After pill should be universally covered by insurance. From what I understand, Planned Parenthood does more of the birth control that you need a doctor for like Norplant, Depo Shots and IUDs at a much cheaper rate. It doesn't have to be done at Planned Parenthood, though and if insurance were required to cover it and if everyone had access to healthcare, no one would need to go to PP for those things in particular.

PP also does things like HIV testing, especially to underserved areas and there is a need for that too but again if those things were funded elsewhere, they wouldn't have to be done necessarily at PP.

You still didn't answer my first question though .

Another seriously overlooked part of the abortion issue is that economic status is huge. 49% of abortion patients are below the poverty line while 26% live between 100-200% of the poverty line. Meaning that policies like Biden's child allowance and universal daycare/preschool proposal could go a long way in cutting abortions, since it's clear many women have them simply because they can't afford children.

 

[just1morething]

Trump is expected to give CPAC speech tomorrow at approx. 3:40pm EST.

When is Trump at CPAC and how can I watch?

I think it is on channel 350 on DirecTV. Not sure the time? I watched part of it today and recorded it.

 

[Born To Slay]

She did way better than Gov. Cuomo who wouldn't even allow the Hospital ship Mercy to assist just because Trump offered it. And then he sends these sick people back to the nursing homes which was ludicrous.

You always want to side with bad things whether it's abortion rights or states doing well without shutting down. I know someone that had an abortion and she regrets it. I seen a man on Focus on the Family that regretted funding an abortion when he was young.

Wait, why are you conflating mask wearing and shutdowns? I understand (not agree with but understand) why conservatives oppose lockdowns but the mask thing is just insane. Mask wearing doesn't cost the economy anything, there's no downsides at all. She didn't just not shut down her state, she basically did nothing,

Her state did not do well at all either. Her state is number 8 in terms of deaths per capita and number 2 in cases per capita. That's absolutely atrocious. I'd say that's a bad thing that you are siding with.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

 

[FGG]

Another seriously overlooked part of the abortion issue is that economic status is huge. 49% of abortion patients are below the poverty line while 26% live between 100-200% of the poverty line. Meaning that policies like Biden's child allowance and universal daycare/preschool proposal could go a long way in cutting abortions, since it's clear many women have them simply because they can't afford children.

Conservatives:

 

[FGG]

Trump is expected to give CPAC speech tomorrow at approx. 3:40pm EST.

When is Trump at CPAC and how can I watch?

Predictions:

-- Republicans who acknowledged there was no election fraud like Liz Cheney and Ben Sasse will be called RINOs (+/- Pence).

-- He won't bring up Bill Barr even though Bill Barr said exactly the same thing. Anyone else notice Barr is the only one Trump hasn't blasted for this? He must have dirt on Trump...

-- "Ivanka should be first female president not Kamala" (he will say her name wrong).

-- Red Scare stuff featuring AOC probably.

-- Some version of "I was the greatest president who ever lived..."

-- Blaming Texas freezing without power on Democrat policies that haven't been enacted yet like the Green New Deal or some frozen windmills rant.

-- "No way could I have lost to Sleepy Joe and the social distance chairs."

-- "BLM/Antifa gonna burn your cities down."

Thing he could legitimately criticize Biden for but probably won't:

-- $1400 is not $2000. Trump could say with him, it would have been a $2000 stimulus.

Thing he can't really get away with criticizing Biden for because he did the same thing and wouldn't want to draw attention to it:

-- Let Mohammed Bin Salman literally get away with murder.

 

[Juan]

Inflation doesn't seem to be responding past stimulus efforts.

Personal income leaps 10% in January thanks to stimulus, but inflation still in check

If real estate prices were accounted for when measuring inflation this would be a different story...

 

[Zugzug]

Let me ask you a hypothetical. If there was a new highly contagious and more rapidly deadly "super AIDS" do you think making unprotected sex with strangers illegal would be an important step in combating it? I personally think education and making preventative resources available is the only thing that would help and legal status wouldn't change behavior.

I understand your point and I don't totally disagree with it. Certainly, making something illegal doesn't stop it. I do think there are some notable differences.

1) Sex is much more of a universally natural instinct and more difficult to control. I realize that someone in intense pain would argue that opioids are just as natural, if not more natural, of an instinct. But there's such a difference in numbers. Then within the pain group, you have the people that could manage with something like marijuana. One could argue that within the sex group, one could manage with condoms or masturbation, but it's still harder to control.

I think the idea that illegality plays no role in access is a bit of a straw man. Maybe I'm showing my hand as someone who's not super savvy and connected, but I don't think it's that easy to get opioids. One at least needs a connection with a script or a doctor friend that can bend the rules. In the case of seeking out the less clean stuff like heroin, one often needs to be trusted within some pretty fringe social groups. On the other hand, sex just requires two consenting people.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I wonder if having a medical background creates some biases in this area. I know many people who would experience some struggle in trying to get opioids. By the time they would get them, maybe something like CBD, marijuana, or antidepressants would help.

2) Opioids affect more people not involved. For example, DUIs or operating dangerous machinery is a risk. The super AIDS would affect the two people consenting and would be the end of it. Yes, their loved ones could be indirectly affected, but so can loved ones of opioid users. Same with other public health risks associated with the two.

I fully agree with you that education >>>> legality, but I mostly disagree with you that legality is a trivial barrier when it comes to opioids. On the other hand, unless we are going to literally spy inside people's rooms, it's impossible to monitor unprotected sex.

 

[FGG]

I understand your point and I don't totally disagree with it. Certainly, making something illegal doesn't stop it. I do think there are some notable differences.

1) Sex is much more of a universally natural instinct and more difficult to control. I realize that someone in intense pain would argue that opioids are just as natural, if not more natural, of an instinct. But there's such a difference in numbers. Then within the pain group, you have the people that could manage with something like marijuana. One could argue that within the sex group, one could manage with condoms or masturbation, but it's still harder to control.

I think the idea that illegality plays no role in access is a bit of a straw man. Maybe I'm showing my hand as someone who's not super savvy and connected, but I don't think it's that easy to get opioids. One at least needs a connection with a script or a doctor friend that can bend the rules. In the case of seeking out the less clean stuff like heroin, one often needs to be trusted within some pretty fringe social groups. On the other hand, sex just requires two consenting people.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I wonder if having a medical background creates some biases in this area. I know many people who would experience some struggle in trying to get opioids. By the time they would get them, maybe something like CBD, marijuana, or antidepressants would help.

2) Opioids affect more people not involved. For example, DUIs or operating dangerous machinery is a risk. The super AIDS would affect the two people consenting and would be the end of it. Yes, their loved ones could be indirectly affected, but so can loved ones of opioid users. Same with other public health risks associated with the two.

I fully agree with you that education >>>> legality, but I mostly disagree with you that legality is a trivial barrier when it comes to opioids. On the other hand, unless we are going to literally spy inside people's rooms, it's impossible to monitor unprotected sex.

It's definitely not a perfect analogy since obviously distribution is very different but I was trying to focus on behavior with something that would be easy to get and imagining how trying to legally restrict that would go. Just like sex, heroin is extremely easy to get.

Part of why that is I think is because it's more socially acceptable for people to buy prescription drugs off of each other and this eventually introduces them to the right people for the harder stuff. Same with Adderall and meth. My friend's brother is a recovering meth addict who started by abusing Adderall and eventually meeting the person who offered him meth for a stronger and longer lasting effect. The brother never had a legal prescription for Adderall btw, just worked two jobs and felt "tired" all the time (which points to your @Born To Slay's point, fix society and you fix the drug problem).

Re: my medical background. Funnily enough, it would make it harder for me to get drugs for personal use in the sense that I would lose my license (often permanently) if I obtained any controlled substance illegally or dispensed any illegally. It would literally be safer for my career (if I ever hope to practice one day) to drive to a bad part of town and ask around if I were actually inclined to do that. One of my colleagues in vet school was caught selling Hydrocodone (while in clinics a month before graduation) once to a friend and lost the ability to get his license when that friend's gf/ex-gf reported them. Now if you owned a clinic or your boss just didn't care, you could cook the books but as an associate with an even marginally attentive boss, you absolutely couldn't do that.

But you are right, enforcement in the hypothetical unprotected sex analogy would be literally impossible but I was trying to suss out whether, if it weren't, you thought legality would change behavior. The hypothetical may be too much of a stretch for that but it's all I could come up with.

 

[Zugzug]

It's definitely not a perfect analogy since obviously distribution is very different but I was trying to focus on behavior with something that would be easy to get and imagining how trying to legally restrict that would go. Just like sex, heroin is extremely easy to get.

Part of why that is I think is because it's more socially acceptable for people to buy prescription drugs off of each other and this eventually introduces them to the right people for the harder stuff. Same with Adderall and meth. My friend's brother is a recovering meth addict who started by abusing Adderall and eventually meeting the person who offered him meth for a stronger and longer lasting effect. The brother never had a legal prescription for Adderall btw, just worked two jobs and felt "tired" all the time (which points to your @Born To Slay's point, fix society and you fix the drug problem).

Re: my medical background. Funnily enough, it would make it harder for me to get drugs for personal use in the sense that I would lose my license (often permanently) if I obtained any controlled substance illegally or dispensed any illegally. It would literally be safer for my career (if I ever hope to practice one day) to drive to a bad part of town and ask around if I were actually inclined to do that. One of my colleagues in vet school was caught selling Hydrocodone (while in clinics a month before graduation) once to a friend and lost the ability to get his license when that friend's gf/ex-gf reported them. Now if you owned a clinic or your boss just didn't care, you could cook the books but as an associate with an even marginally attentive boss, you absolutely couldn't do that.

But you are right, enforcement in the hypothetical unprotected sex analogy would be literally impossible but I was trying to suss out whether, if it weren't, you thought legality would change behavior. The hypothetical may be too much of a stretch for that but it's all I could come up with.

Yeah, I mean tying together your points and @Born To Slay's points, I think we all agree that if someone had it in their mind that they would do anything to try an opioid, it wouldn't matter if it was legal or not. The best bet to stopping them is lots of education on the dangers and how they can try alternatives beforehand.

But I believe legality impacts the slow transition towards coming around to trying it. I also think it doesn't matter how many warnings or waivers we put on it, people always push limits.

As perhaps a silly example, when I take Ibuprofen, I read the dosage and even though it tells me not to take more than X, I always think in the back of my mind that the FDA padded the number for people that will overdose and that I'm "different." I still generally follow the label instructions, but that extra thought of "there's built in safety" is always there.

 

[just1morething]

-- Republicans who acknowledged there was no election fraud like Liz Cheney and Ben Sasse will be called RINOs (+/- Pence).

Sounds like their was fraud as much as MSM wasn't to deny it. All the hearings in the Georgia Senate plus listening to Mike Lindell's "absolute proof". We're just armchair critics so it doesn't matter.

 

[just1morething]

If real estate prices were accounted for when measuring inflation this would be a different story...

You've been a member over 4 years, why so cheap?

 

[Lilah]

Predictions:

-- Republicans who acknowledged there was no election fraud like Liz Cheney and Ben Sasse will be called RINOs (+/- Pence).

-- He won't bring up Bill Barr even though Bill Barr said exactly the same thing. Anyone else notice Barr is the only one Trump hasn't blasted for this? He must have dirt on Trump...

-- "Ivanka should be first female president not Kamala" (he will say her name wrong).

-- Red Scare stuff featuring AOC probably.

-- Some version of "I was the greatest president who ever lived..."

-- Blaming Texas freezing without power on Democrat policies that haven't been enacted yet like the Green New Deal or some frozen windmills rant.

-- "No way could I have lost to Sleepy Joe and the social distance chairs."

-- "BLM/Antifa gonna burn your cities down."

Thing he could legitimately criticize Biden for but probably won't:

-- $1400 is not $2000. Trump could say with him, it would have been a $2000 stimulus.

Thing he can't really get away with criticizing Biden for because he did the same thing and wouldn't want to draw attention to it:

-- Let Mohammed Bin Salman literally get away with murder.

People are expecting a big announcement from Trump. I suspect maybe the 2024 run.

 

[Born To Slay]

You've been a member over 4 years, why so cheap?

How is that on topic? If you want to talk about who has and hasn't donated, you can make a thread for that.

Also, Juan is a very nice guy who has done a lot to comfort members in his time here and provide support and insight to them. He's definitely not an appropriate target for insults.

 

[FGG]

How is that on topic? If you want to talk about who has and hasn't donated, you can make a thread for that.

Also, Juan is a very nice guy who has done a lot to comfort members in his time here and provide support and insight to them. He's definitely not an appropriate target for insults.

I think it's "Redirected Feline Aggression":

Redirected aggression occurs when a cat is aroused by another animal, person or event, but is unable to direct aggression toward the stimulus. ... If a person or animal in the home were to walk into the room, they may be the recipients of an aggressive attack.

 

[just1morething]

How is that on topic? If you want to talk about who has and hasn't donated, you can make a thread for that.

How about you? No, I've seen he posted recently and was always critical of the US when he's from Spain. My noise is worse today, maybe that's why. Not redirected aggression at all. I wasn't even thinking about anyone in particular.

 

[just1morething]

Donald Trump just started speaking on OAN, Newsmax, Fox, C-Span, and maybe other channels.