American Politics

[Chris P]

What, are you crazy? That's not the way I roll. What woman is going to want to bang Darth Vader? I'll be the guy with the surgical grade N95 mask, the aviator goggles, Bermuda shorts, and wife beater (sleeveless) T-shirt. Here in God's country, Texas, I'd typically have a semiautomatic weapon slung over my shoulder too. This is called peacocking -- appealing to the opposite sex. Women can't resist a man with aviator goggles and an AR-15. And the aviator goggles, like the N95 mask help prevent transmission of COVID!

Have to disagree with you on masks, my friend. Attractive women do indeed love a man with aviators and an AR-15, but nothing dries their pussies faster than a guy who has submitted to wearing the face diaper (other than perhaps admitting he votes democrat).

[EihTooms]

Yes, Democrats are much more likely to appoint people based on their sex, race or sexual preferences, instead of their abilities. That's not to say I wouldn't love to see a Nikki Haley / Tim Scott presidential ticket in 2024. Not only are they much more competent than Biden and Harris, they'd win. Nikki's a bit of a neocon, but it would still be worth it to see them wipe the floor with the tears of Democrats.

Don't injure your back twisting like that.

The realities of the day were that Hillary Clinton was the most qualified person to be POTUS in 2016. I'll even say that was true in 2008. Her gender was not a disqualifier for the nomination or the job.

The realities of the day were that Barack Obama was clearly the best choice for POTUS among all the other party nominees in 2008 and 2012. His skin color was not a disqyalifier for the nomination or the job.

Maybe someday the Repub Party will break with modern historical precedent and nominate someone qualified for the job of POTUS. Although it strains plausibility that such a person would run as a Repub instead of a Dem, particularly if they happened to be female and / or have black skin, not to mention win the Repub nomination in the first place even if by some bizarre fluke such a person did run as a Repub.

[Chris P]

No of course you can't. I no longer expect anything else from you.

It's best to expect nothing but comedy from Eihtooms. That way, he rarely fails to deliver.

[Chris P]

Your delusions are indeed very comical, to the point where is just one big blurring rant. And where you are now self congratulating yourself...kkkk!

Could be considered very narcissistic indeed? Take care now!

You're spending a lot of time thinking about me, attempting to psychoanalyze me, wondering what I'm doing / thinking / wearing.

I don't think about you at all.

I'd just like you to answer a simple yes or no question: Do you deny that black people, particularly black males aged 15 to 35, commit vastly more violent crime than other groups?

[Chris P]

But really, what are the Repubs blablabla

As we've established, most Repubs support the Second Amendment.

Why do the dems, fake news, hollyweird and deep state, who are opposed to gun ownership, not focus their considerable efforts on the areas where the vast majority of gun crime exists: urban ghettos and handguns?

Why do they ignore the vast majority of gun crime (committed by, shall we say, democrat voters in urban democrat areas) to endlessly attack (via legislative efforts, hollyweird movies and shows, fake news reports and more) comparatively law-abiding people in suburbs and rural areas who own rifles and commit a tiny fraction of the total gun crime?

This is the 5th time I've asked, so let's see if you answer the question this time.

[Chris P]

One good thing that may well come from all this is. It has really shone a bright light on some huge failures of modern society:

- how corrupt the government is. In this case, in league w Big Pharma (but usually its defence / banks / finance etc).

- how the government should never be allowed to censor free speech, nor use big tech to influence / censor people that think differently to them.

- how the majority of normal people can be lead off the cliff edge (once again) by psychological manipulation for the cause of a Big Lie.

Good post.

[Chris P]

Actually, all Dems know that there is a difference between men and women.

Really? Then why can't you define them?

What we also know is that some males are born into female bodies and some females are born into male bodies.

Haha! This guy actually believes the crap he reads in those woke leftist blogs like Salon.

You are your body. How is it possible that your entire DNA is male, from your feet to your cock to your eyeballs, but somehow a small part of your brain is "female"? Why can these supposedly "female brains" in male bodies not be distinguished from male brains in any way?

Trannies are mentally ill and / or autogynephiles (men who get turned on thinking of themselves as a woman) with a dash of attention-seeking thrown in.

No doubt the ubiquity of porn available to children is a factor, as is the targeting of kids for grooming by homosexual and trannies, which has always been a thing but has gone into overdrive recently with drag queen kid-touching shows and faggot books pushed on elementary kids by blue-haired leftist SSRI-guzzling single teachers. If they can get them early they can fuck them up for life.

They will also deny that homosexuality (male and female) is victimless and that it doesn't harm anybody.

Except the kids they groom. And the taxpayers who end up footing the bill for their many STDs, rectal fissures, etc.

[Chris P]

The simple facts are that the availability of firearms is the culprit.

Haha! When you take a wrong turn in Chicago and get blasted by Shontavious for your Air Jordans, the gun is to blame, nobody else! Got that, bigot?

[Tiny 12]

So you agree that Repub governors are absolutely useless in getting the murder rates in their "urban ghettos" (a favorite Chrissie term) under control. They are very good, however, in trying to pass legislation dictating what women can do with their bodies, but seem curiously obtuse when confronted with urban gun violence. Maybe the are simply hopeful that all of those responsible for all that violence will simply kill themselves off.

Of course, people of a Repub bent will call the above analysis bogus but how else can one explain it? The simple facts are that the availability of firearms is the culprit. Where do the firearms come from? They come from straw buyers, from gun shows, from being stolen and they come from outside the state where gun laws are more lax (assuming the state in question has tougher gun laws that neighboring states). Evidently Repub governors, who have the power to convince their Repub-controlled legislatures to enact tougher legislation re: the issues raised above, think the situation in their states is just fine. But if a "Saturday night special" that costs $50 on the street of any large city anywhere now starts costing $1000 because they have become impossible to get, it becomes a loosing proposition to buy a $1000 handgun to stick up a bodega to get $100.

Like I said, policing is done at the local level. All the state police do in my state is hand out parking tickets.

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire are all gun friendly states that have low firearm homicide rates.

As to places like Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana, I attribute the problem to over 100 years of Democratic Party misrule prior to 1965. I'm not going to get into that though as the last time you and I did, our posts were deleted, with good reason. In any event, the blue counties in those states, like the USA in general, have the highest homicide rates.

As Chris and I have pointed out to you and Spidy repeatedly, the problem is the handguns. Chris would probably disagree, but in my view, if the powers that be want to ban handguns, they can have at it. Just don't take my long guns.

[Tiny 12]

Well, the evidence I provided strongly supports the conclusion that Dems "Keep winning" the votes and support of the American people despite their having met for decades the politically risky challenges of the day and, unlike Repubs, don't merely take the easiest route just to ensure an election win.

Then I was anxious to be entertained by whatever evidence you have that the Dems "should have" won more elections if they had only ignored the realities of a changing world, not passed complicated, politically risky but necessary and right legislation and taken the easy route by only nominating the usual middle aged or older white guys on the top and bottom of the POTUS ticket. But I didn't see it.

Oh, on that topic, in my last list of Dem vote and support wins I forgot to include their first ever female POTUS nominee for a major party winning almost 3 million more votes than the Repubs' tried and true old white man celebrity nominee. Hers was also one of those 7 out of 8 recent POTUS elections where the Dem won more votes than anyone else in the race.

Yes, Democrats are much more likely to appoint people based on their sex, race or sexual preferences, instead of their abilities. That's not to say I wouldn't love to see a Nikki Haley / Tim Scott presidential ticket in 2024. Not only are they much more competent than Biden and Harris, they'd win. Nikki's a bit of a neocon, but it would still be worth it to see them wipe the floor with the tears of Democrats.

[EihTooms]

No of course you can't. I no longer expect anything else from you. I guess you reached that age where you cannot entertain evidence that contradicts what you believe. Fllat Earther Dem.

Well, the evidence I provided strongly supports the conclusion that Dems "Keep winning" the votes and support of the American people despite their having met for decades the politically risky challenges of the day and, unlike Repubs, don't merely take the easiest route just to ensure an election win.

Then I was anxious to be entertained by whatever evidence you have that the Dems "should have" won more elections if they had only ignored the realities of a changing world, not passed complicated, politically risky but necessary and right legislation and taken the easy route by only nominating the usual middle aged or older white guys on the top and bottom of the POTUS ticket. But I didn't see it.

Oh, on that topic, in my last list of Dem vote and support wins I forgot to include their first ever female POTUS nominee for a major party winning almost 3 million more votes than the Repubs' tried and true old white man celebrity nominee. Hers was also one of those 7 out of 8 recent POTUS elections where the Dem won more votes than anyone else in the race.

[Tiny 12]

A lot of doctors are not getting the boosters.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...-booster-shots

"I have taken my last COVID vaccine without RCT (randomized control evidence) level evidence it will reduce my risk of severe disease," Dr. Todd Lee, an infectious disease expert at McGill University, wrote on Twitter.

Moderna presented efficacy estimates for a different bivalent, which has never been used in the United States, during a recent meeting. The company estimated the booster increased protection against infection by just 10 percent.

Lee was pointing to the lack of randomized clinical trial (RCT) results for the updated boosters, which were cleared in the United States and Canada in the fall of 2022 primarily based on data from experiments with mice.

The USA Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted emergency use authorization to updated boosters, or bivalent shots, from Pfizer and Moderna in August 2022 despite there being no human data.

So the current boosters have not been proven to work, and they have no safety profile.

As for harm, that comes from immune imprinting. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art...id-19-vaccines#Immune-imprinting.

This article is very pro-vaccine but it is honest about immune imprinting.

While many of us will be able to stage an immune response to SARS-CoV-2 that we would not have been able to 2 years or even 1 year ago, the individual response may vary considerably between people, depending on the nature of previous exposure.

"Some people want to be very exotic and sort of biblical about it, call it 'original antigenic sin,' you know, the idea that your immune system is born with some sin on board already, and you can't go change it back to a blank sheet. So that's not the kind of academic nuance, that's a real thing and a big thing," Prof. Altmann said.

And there was this shocking statement: This was because attempts to develop variant-specific vaccines showed that it was not possible to develop them quickly enough to be of use in each wave.

So we are Omicron like version 7 now, but let us say you had alpha Covid and then the vaccine. You have primed your body to fight Alpha. So when omicron Covid hits your body and your body is used to making antibodies against Alpha, that is what it is going to do, and studies showed that those previously vaccinated or infected with one variant of Covid do worse than people who have not had any vaccine or exposure.

And the one certainty about the virus is that it will keep mutating.

Hi Elvis, The data I've seen indicates boosters do provide significant protection from hospitalization and death from Omicron, although, granted, the protection from infection lacks a lot to be desired.

I read somewhere that the overall infection fatality ratio (IFR) from COVID today is around 0.1%. That's down from the 0.5% to 1.2% estimates earlier in the pandemic. It has dropped largely because of partial immunity provided by vaccines, boosters and infection, and probably because the current variants are less virulent.

The IFR ratio is much higher for older people though.

Anyway, the probability of me dying from a case of COVID now, which was low to begin with, is now maybe around the probability of dying from a case of the flu. However, COVID is much more infectious than the flu. I get the flu vaccine every year, and I never get the flu. I've got no problem getting a COVID vaccine every year or every 6 months. I don't like getting laid up sick in bed.

As to physicians, around 95% or 96% of American physicians have gotten the vaccine. Based on a couple of surveys I found on Google, about 70% to 75% of physicians at this point in time strongly support the vaccine and boosters. About 10 to 12% believe the vaccines are dangerous. And the other 15% to 20% fall in between -- maybe believing the boosters are a good idea for the elderly or people over 50 but not for young people. Note the discrepancy -- all but 4% or 5% of the physicians are vaccinated, but 10% or 12% disapprove of the vaccine. I guess that leaves about 7% who have modified their view about the risk / reward profile of the vaccine.

I read the immune imprinting article. Yes the virus is evolving. But they appear to be saying regardless the vaccine and boosters still offer good protection from severe disease.

[Tiny 12]

The NFL kept track of people really well, and they had some intriguing data. If a Covid + person talked to someone without Covid, the masks helped to prevent getting the disease, but this was before omicron. Still, people did transmit Covid if they were wearing masks, but this was pre-omicron. After omicron hits and it is so contagious, the NFL stops most if not all preventative measures with Covid because they know those measures do not work. The studies you looked at were not when omicron was around.

You are welcome to believe your own anecdotes as evidence Tiny. I have noted that a few times now. The issue is that, even if we agree that these research studies are not conclusive in favour of 'masks don't work' - you have zero evdience to support your case that masks DO work!

Gentlemen, Since it's been a year or two since I last looked at research on the effectiveness of masks in preventing COVID, and given Elvis' comments above, I decided to do a quick Google scholar search. I only came up with five more-or-less noteworthy papers published in 2022, and they all appeared in the first half of the year. This is perhaps the best, as it provides summaries of relevant studies.

https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/f.../fvl-2021-0032

Like Elvis' link, it kind of leaves you hanging, with no clear cut call one way or the other. Reading the summaries, the pro-mask case is more convincing to me.

This paper also is of particular interest as it's the only one I found that extended through Omicron. Prior to July, 2021, participants who didn't wear masks every day were 66% more likely to report a COVID infection than those who wore masks daily. During the Delta period, the percentage dropped to 53%, and during Omicron to 16%, which agrees more or less with Elvis' comment above.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...96655322007271

The other three papers aren't as noteworthy, but I'll include them below anyway. They support wearing masks.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8830622/

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/fu...aff.2021.01072

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/28/1/21-1591_article

This won't affect my mask wearing. I'll probably continue to wear a mask several times a week, when I'm in a crowded indoor area besides a restaurant. But yeah, as a result of this exercise, I do see your points. Still, I don't see any downside.

You sound like a religious believer that, when asked why they beleive in god, says, 'bcos it makes me feel better'.

Don't discount the placebo effect JustTK. Also, unfortunately for you and me, people who are deeply religious live longer than agnostics and atheists.

Anyway, if you ever visit Colombia, I would love to meet you. I will recognise you as the Darth Vader lookalike walking down the street.

What, are you crazy? That's not the way I roll. What woman is going to want to bang Darth Vader? I'll be the guy with the surgical grade N95 mask, the aviator goggles, Bermuda shorts, and wife beater (sleeveless) T-shirt. Here in God's country, Texas, I'd typically have a semiautomatic weapon slung over my shoulder too. This is called peacocking -- appealing to the opposite sex. Women can't resist a man with aviator goggles and an AR-15. And the aviator goggles, like the N95 mask help prevent transmission of COVID!

[JustTK]

If that isn't what you meant then I don't see how ...'.

No of course you can't. I no longer expect anything else from you. I guess you reached that age where you cannot entertain evidence that contradicts what you believe. Fllat Earther Dem.

[Spidy]

Typical lazy, cowardly and spineless Repubs, who secretly want to oust Trump, but don't want to do it for themselves.

Author, McKay Coppins, says he's interviewed several Repubs and GOP consultants, and it appears to be, "There's a desire for deux ex machina", said one GOP consultant, "...It's like 2016 all over again, only more fatalistic".

And that, "The least disruptive path to getting rid to Trump, grim as it sounds, might be to wait for his expiration. "

So once again, the QAnon/Repubs, parade down that "Trump Rabbit Hole", again of their own making. Is wishing thinking going to stop the Repubs fall, down the rabbit hole?

Here is the article in the Atlantic:

Republicans 2024 Magical Thinking

"Faced with the prospect of another election cycle dominated by Trump and uncertain that he can actually be beaten in the primaries, many Republicans are quietly rooting for something to happen that will make him go away. And they would strongly prefer not to make it happen themselves."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...achina/672888/

Personally I'm looking forward to heavyweight bout between "Trump vs. DeSantis".