Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
Which probably isn’t even the worst part of that exchange, given it was building on Netanyahu being called thus.
I mean one doesn’t need to be in combat to be a war hero I guess, despite numerous other sins Winston Churchill would, I imagine be considered a war hero by the majority of Brits for his WW2 leadership alone.
Thing is Trump is no fucking Churchill that’s for sure
Of course Trump's a war hero, he avoided STDs. Which is probably not a huge accomplishment when half the people he raped were children, but let the boy win his spurs.
Maybe war hero trump is better for Ukraine than Nobel peace prize Trump. He can have a purple heart and Nobel peace prize if he gives Ukraine enough to kick Russia out of their territory.
On August 21 2025 01:54 Billyboy wrote: Maybe war hero trump is better for Ukraine than Nobel peace prize Trump. He can have a purple heart and Nobel peace prize if he gives Ukraine enough to kick Russia out of their territory.
What makes you think War Hero Trump will fund Ukraine instead of Russia?
On August 21 2025 01:54 Billyboy wrote: Maybe war hero trump is better for Ukraine than Nobel peace prize Trump. He can have a purple heart and Nobel peace prize if he gives Ukraine enough to kick Russia out of their territory.
What makes you think War Hero Trump will fund Ukraine instead of Russia?
I mean it depends who talks to him last of course, but more voters on the Ukraine side so maybe it has the edge?
The White House just bragged about taxing Americans nearly 100 billion dollars more than Biden taxed them (in comparable 6-month periods: Biden was $55B for Jan-July 2024; Trump was $150B for Jan-July 2025).
On August 20 2025 17:55 Acrofales wrote: Ok, we're getting into trolley problem territory here, but I disagree quite thoroughly with the action vs inaction dichotomy. Let's say the government can fund an mRNA vaccine research program that will most likely protect 50,000,000 Americans from an infectious disease. This is a medicine that does not yet exist, but all the scientists claim it is going to save lives, and where not lives, a week of productivity at a minimum (e.g. flu).
They can also spend the same amount of money investigating how to make drinking water safer. The scientists involved claim this will protect 1,000,000 Americans from intoxication through water. Lethality, morbidity and risk profiles are otherwise identical to that of the infectious disease.
You think the US government should spend their limited money on protecting the 1,000,000 from toxins in drinking water, rather than the 50,000,000 that could be protected from the infectious disease at the same cost? Just because one of them is something you already do and the other would be a new thing?
I think you said at one point that you run a business. I assume you don't apply the same mentality to your business decisions...
You may be thinking of baal who runs a factory, or some other poster, nobody knows what I do.
I'm not going to nitpick to avoid a straight answer, if you're fixing that the profile and everything else is equal, obviously the vaccine research needs to be prioritized by pure utilitarianism. It's no contest. There is nothing inherent for me about "toxicology" versus "pathology" that would make the 1 million people somehow outweigh the 50 million, or for example like people who get diseases deserve it so they're just SOL. Stuff like that, if it's what you're probing, is not what I'd say.
Departing from my colleague Rayzda, I don't think it's a bad question at all, it's a good thing to sink one's teeth into. But I will nitpick the assumptions behind the hypothetical to begin with - you can equalize the two cases for the sake of argument, but reality is fuzzier.
Let's further say instead they're both 1 million with not quite the same profile, with unknowns to explore:
Water sources could be less likely to detoxify themselves, meaning your 1 million would actually be a larger permanent issue, whereas an epidemic may evolve and fizzle out. On the other hand, if the epidemic hasn't happened yet, 1 million might be an average estimate, where the ultimate floor is 0 people would be affected. But just because the floor is 0 people, that doesn't mean the ceiling is equidistant from the mean at 2 million people. Theoretically unlimited people could be affected. It depends on how your projections are distributed and how you judge them, which isn't necessarily objective. That's what you are buying (or trying) to buy insurance against. And that's why in many cases I'd go with the vaccines instead if pressed.
If it's worth it at all to help a million people, honestly, flipping a coin is not as smart as just buying another trolley. If it's worth it, it should be worth it without having to choose. Just go into debt or take the money from the new sports stadium.
The other issue is the word "likely" (and the word "claim") which all this hinges on. In the real world you can't know the probability of something working out that you haven't done. You have to estimate that also to get an expected value. Toxins, if true, are real and measurable because you know they are there. A new research treatment, you might dump it because it only has a 0.1% chance of curing AIDS if the research works out. (The bias here is the own researchers have, or display, higher confidence than outsiders.) But rare things happen too, so what if happened to be the one that cured AIDS, but you didn't know that so you put resources elsewhere and only got some mediocre treatments instead of a cure? That sucks, but decision making can't be results oriented when you're working with imperfect information.
Like in the case of covid, once it was out, even if you had low confidence in mRNA, you are forced to do mRNA, because there is no other choice and you have to do something. That's actually similar to how fluoridation got started also.
The last issue is the economics are different in reality. You can make a vaccine and sell it. You can make treatments and sell them. You can recoup the money. There can be competing vaccines and treatments. If there's toxins, basically only the government can clean that up. In some cases you can fine the people who did it, if for example a company did it, or you can sell some kind of antidote or filtration type thing, or you can buy substitute water to supply a whole area while the toxins biodegrade, or filter the toxins in perpetuity - but most of these only the government can or would do. The government has a monopoly on water. That drags it towards being an obligation even if it's more expensive, I'd say.
That would be my reasoning.
Businesses should be profitable (eventually) whereas the government should just strive not to be too unprofitable for too long. You can definitely take a tactical loss to save millions of your own people for the same reasons you could take a loss in business.
I appreciate the great response. In fact, you've generally responded with well thought out responses in the discussion about the health report. I really appreciate it, and the back and forth you had with CCK about fluoride. My initial thoughts were basically that people who are anti-fluoride are the same ones that think vaccines cause autism and airplanes spread chem trails so that the reptilians can keep us docile. But your discussion has generally convinced me that it's worth considering whether the US policy on fluoride in water is outdated. The science on how much fluoride is safe hasn't changed. But peoples' habits have. Where when the policy was created, fluoride was not generally available. Now fluoride-containing toothpaste is everywhere and the risks of too much fluoride from having it in the water might outweigh the benefits. And a better approach would be to mandate all toothpaste have fluoride, and a health drive to encourage brushing teeth and the odd mouthwash. When approached in that manner, I fully agree with you that public policy should remain under scrutiny and be updated when relevant.
And while I am not sure that is what RFK intends, the discussion was still useful.
On August 20 2025 17:55 Acrofales wrote: Ok, we're getting into trolley problem territory here, but I disagree quite thoroughly with the action vs inaction dichotomy. Let's say the government can fund an mRNA vaccine research program that will most likely protect 50,000,000 Americans from an infectious disease. This is a medicine that does not yet exist, but all the scientists claim it is going to save lives, and where not lives, a week of productivity at a minimum (e.g. flu).
They can also spend the same amount of money investigating how to make drinking water safer. The scientists involved claim this will protect 1,000,000 Americans from intoxication through water. Lethality, morbidity and risk profiles are otherwise identical to that of the infectious disease.
You think the US government should spend their limited money on protecting the 1,000,000 from toxins in drinking water, rather than the 50,000,000 that could be protected from the infectious disease at the same cost? Just because one of them is something you already do and the other would be a new thing?
I think you said at one point that you run a business. I assume you don't apply the same mentality to your business decisions...
You may be thinking of baal who runs a factory, or some other poster, nobody knows what I do.
I'm not going to nitpick to avoid a straight answer, if you're fixing that the profile and everything else is equal, obviously the vaccine research needs to be prioritized by pure utilitarianism. It's no contest. There is nothing inherent for me about "toxicology" versus "pathology" that would make the 1 million people somehow outweigh the 50 million, or for example like people who get diseases deserve it so they're just SOL. Stuff like that, if it's what you're probing, is not what I'd say.
Departing from my colleague Rayzda, I don't think it's a bad question at all, it's a good thing to sink one's teeth into. But I will nitpick the assumptions behind the hypothetical to begin with - you can equalize the two cases for the sake of argument, but reality is fuzzier.
Let's further say instead they're both 1 million with not quite the same profile, with unknowns to explore:
Water sources could be less likely to detoxify themselves, meaning your 1 million would actually be a larger permanent issue, whereas an epidemic may evolve and fizzle out. On the other hand, if the epidemic hasn't happened yet, 1 million might be an average estimate, where the ultimate floor is 0 people would be affected. But just because the floor is 0 people, that doesn't mean the ceiling is equidistant from the mean at 2 million people. Theoretically unlimited people could be affected. It depends on how your projections are distributed and how you judge them, which isn't necessarily objective. That's what you are buying (or trying) to buy insurance against. And that's why in many cases I'd go with the vaccines instead if pressed.
If it's worth it at all to help a million people, honestly, flipping a coin is not as smart as just buying another trolley. If it's worth it, it should be worth it without having to choose. Just go into debt or take the money from the new sports stadium.
The other issue is the word "likely" (and the word "claim") which all this hinges on. In the real world you can't know the probability of something working out that you haven't done. You have to estimate that also to get an expected value. Toxins, if true, are real and measurable because you know they are there. A new research treatment, you might dump it because it only has a 0.1% chance of curing AIDS if the research works out. (The bias here is the own researchers have, or display, higher confidence than outsiders.) But rare things happen too, so what if happened to be the one that cured AIDS, but you didn't know that so you put resources elsewhere and only got some mediocre treatments instead of a cure? That sucks, but decision making can't be results oriented when you're working with imperfect information.
Like in the case of covid, once it was out, even if you had low confidence in mRNA, you are forced to do mRNA, because there is no other choice and you have to do something. That's actually similar to how fluoridation got started also.
The last issue is the economics are different in reality. You can make a vaccine and sell it. You can make treatments and sell them. You can recoup the money. There can be competing vaccines and treatments. If there's toxins, basically only the government can clean that up. In some cases you can fine the people who did it, if for example a company did it, or you can sell some kind of antidote or filtration type thing, or you can buy substitute water to supply a whole area while the toxins biodegrade, or filter the toxins in perpetuity - but most of these only the government can or would do. The government has a monopoly on water. That drags it towards being an obligation even if it's more expensive, I'd say.
That would be my reasoning.
Businesses should be profitable (eventually) whereas the government should just strive not to be too unprofitable for too long. You can definitely take a tactical loss to save millions of your own people for the same reasons you could take a loss in business.
I appreciate the great response. In fact, you've generally responded with well thought out responses in the discussion about the health report. I really appreciate it, and the back and forth you had with CCK about fluoride. My initial thoughts were basically that people who are anti-fluoride are the same ones that think vaccines cause autism and airplanes spread chem trails so that the reptilians can keep us docile. But your discussion has generally convinced me that it's worth considering whether the US policy on fluoride in water is outdated. The science on how much fluoride is safe hasn't changed. But peoples' habits have. Where when the policy was created, fluoride was not generally available. Now fluoride-containing toothpaste is everywhere and the risks of too much fluoride from having it in the water might outweigh the benefits. And a better approach would be to mandate all toothpaste have fluoride, and a health drive to encourage brushing teeth and the odd mouthwash. When approached in that manner, I fully agree with you that public policy should remain under scrutiny and be updated when relevant.
And while I am not sure that is what RFK intends, the discussion was still useful.
It was an interesting read. Thanks to those who contributed, good stuff.
The conservative network Newsmax will pay $67 million to settle a lawsuit accusing it of defaming a voting equipment company by spreading lies about President Trump's 2020 election loss, according to documents filed Monday. The suit against Newsmax was brought by Dominion Voting Systems, which alleged the network published false and defamatory statements claiming the company rigged the election. A Delaware judge ruled partially in favor of Dominion in a decision earlier this year, additional court filings show.
The settlement comes after Fox News Channel paid $787.5 million to settle a similar lawsuit in 2023 and Newsmax paid what court papers describe as $40 million to settle a libel lawsuit from a different voting machine manufacturer, Smartmatic, which also was a target of pro-Trump conspiracy theories on the network.
Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis had ruled earlier that Newsmax did indeed defame Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems by airing false information about the company and its equipment. But Davis left it to a jury to eventually decide whether that was done with malice, and, if so, how much Dominion deserved from Newsmax in damages. Newsmax and Dominion reached a settlement before the trial could take place.
In a statement to CBS News on Monday, a Dominion spokesperson said the company was "pleased to have settled this matter."
The settlement originally came to light in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing by Newsmax, which was dated Friday, Aug. 15, the day that a deal was reached, according to the document. Newsmax has agreed to pay the settlement in three installments of $27 million, $20 million and $20 million, with the final installment to be paid in January 2027, the filing said.
Newsmax continues to deny allegations that suggest its coverage of Dominion in the context of the 2020 election was defamatory.
"Newsmax believed it was critically important for the American people to hear both sides of the election disputes that arose in 2020," the company said in a statement published on its website. "We stand by our coverage as fair, balanced, and conducted within professional standards of journalism."
price of doing business. maxing ratings and profits while minimizing the actual news part at a company called... Newsmax.
also this closely aligned "election lie story" - this time Fox vs Smartmatic. going by those texts it won't be cheap.
Here are the five juiciest revelations from the filing:
Jeanine Pirro bragged about helping Trump and the Republican Party.
Jeanine Pirro, a former Fox News host and current U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, bragged about helping Trump and the GOP, despite Fox’s prohibition on hosts getting involved in politics.
“I work so hard for the party across the country,” Pirro told then-Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel in a text message in September 2020. At the time, Pirro hosted Justice with Judge Jeanine. “I’m the Number 1 watched show on all news cable all weekend. I work so hard for the President and party.”
The filing also reveals that Pirro hoped to secure a pardon for her ex-husband, Albert Pirro, who was convicted of tax evasion and conspiracy. Trump eventually granted him one.
Pirro called Fox News colleague Sean Hannity an “egomaniac” and said he used Trump’s private bathroom in the Oval Office
In another text message, from Oct. 27, 2020, Pirro accused Sean Hannity of being an “egomanic” and cited Hannity’s behavior at the White House.
Hannity “[stormed] in like he owns the place, throws his papers on the Pres desk and says, you don’t mind if I use your private bathroom, and walks into bathroom within Oval and uses it. Looks at me and says, I got to talk to him … It’s all abt him, period. No one else matters.”
Pirro’s own producer told her to cool it on election fraud allegations.
Pirro’s producer at the time was Jerry Andrews, who warned the host against making claims of election fraud.
“You should be very careful with this stuff and protect yourself given the ongoing calls for evidence that has not materialized,” Andrews told her.
Later, Pirro became incensed when Fox News declined to air the Nov. 7 episode of her show. Earlier that day, the election was called for Biden several days after Election Day. She responded by texting Hannity.
“I’M TIRED OF THE CENSORSHIP AND I’M EMBARRASSED BY HOW THEY CALLED THIS ELECTION,” she wrote to her colleague. Hannity responded by trying to placate her.
“Fox News promoting u every 5 seconds. It’s hilarious,” he texted.
Jesse Watters said that Fox going “all in” on election fraud claims would be a ratings bonanza.
“Think about how incredible our ratings would be if Fox went ALL in on STOP THE STEAL,” Jesse Watters texted Fox’s Greg Gutfeld in December 2020 as Trump was ramping up his efforts to overturn the election. In a text the day after the election, Watters expressed concern about audience backlash after Fox was the first network to call Arizona for Biden.
“There’s an audience uprising vs. Fox like I’ve never seen,” he texted a producer.
A producer at the network told Watters that “you cannot, under any circumstances, cast doubt” on the election because “the powers that be are not having any of it.”
On the same day, Watters texted Fox colleague Pete Hegseth, who is now Secretary of Defense.
“By the way, did you get the memo about not saying fraud?” Watters asked.
Bret Baier told Fox executives that Maria Bartiromo’s election coverage needed fact-checking.
Bret Baier texted Fox News executive Jay Wallace to express dismay at the election coverage provided by Maria Bartiromo.
“None of that is true as far as we can tell,” Baier wrote. “We need to fact-check this crap.”
“I work so hard for the party across the country,” Pirro told then-Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel in a text message in September 2020. At the time, Pirro hosted Justice with Judge Jeanine. “I’m the Number 1 watched show on all news cable all weekend. I work so hard for the President and party.”
quite the toady for such an old and hateful woman. now U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia of course, loyalty gets rewarded by the "Don".
Got this video recommended out of the blue and I think this guy is speaking facts. He explains the radical political shift as a psychological phenomenon as much as a political one and he argues that the anti-progressive movement is rooted in a fear of fundamental needs not being met. The more basic people's fears are, the more impossible discourse becomes around social justice. Fundamental fears = no empathy. Trump creates this fear and dumps fuel on it, that's his primary method and it works. And he redirects people's fears against the people who require social justice the most. Immigrants, queer people, black people, etc. And lets not forget homeless people, they barely get attention from anyone at all for some reason.
But the guy also argues that there's a way out of this situation and towards a progressive future by addressing fundamental needs of all people. However, he argues that this process needs to start all over again from scratch. This is a very interesting point. Is he right? I don't know, but I think his argument is compelling.
On August 21 2025 18:58 Magic Powers wrote: Got this video recommended out of the blue and I think this guy is speaking facts. He explains the radical political shift as a psychological phenomenon as much as a political one and he argues that the anti-progressive movement is rooted in a fear of fundamental needs not being met. The more basic people's fears are, the more impossible discourse becomes around social justice. Fundamental fears = no empathy. Trump creates this fear and dumps fuel on it, that's his primary method and it works. And he redirects people's fears against the people who require social justice the most. Immigrants, queer people, black people, etc. And lets not forget homeless people, they barely get attention from anyone at all for some reason.
But the guy also argues that there's a way out of this situation and towards a progressive future by addressing fundamental needs of all people. However, he argues that this process needs to start all over again from scratch. This is a very interesting point. Is he right? I don't know, but I think his argument is compelling.
On August 21 2025 06:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The White House just bragged about taxing Americans nearly 100 billion dollars more than Biden taxed them (in comparable 6-month periods: Biden was $55B for Jan-July 2024; Trump was $150B for Jan-July 2025).
One of the many ways I know conservatism is bullshit is that they spent 30 years talking about how raising taxes is un-American, unfree, communist, etc. and overnight, now taxes are a good thing America fuck yeah!
Rand Paul is an enormous piece of shit but I will give him the mildest of kudos for being the singular high-profile federal Republican to say taxes aren't good just because Trump is the one that raised them.
On August 21 2025 06:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The White House just bragged about taxing Americans nearly 100 billion dollars more than Biden taxed them (in comparable 6-month periods: Biden was $55B for Jan-July 2024; Trump was $150B for Jan-July 2025).
One of the many ways I know conservatism is bullshit is that they spent 30 years talking about how raising taxes is un-American, unfree, communist, etc. and overnight, now taxes are a good thing America fuck yeah!
Rand Paul is an enormous piece of shit but I will give him the mildest of kudos for being the singular high-profile federal Republican to say taxes aren't good just because Trump is the one that raised them.
At the risk of repeating myself I'll say the tariffs are bad, as is Trump taking a cut of Nvidia sales in China, or trying to use government money to become a stakeholder in companies like Intel.
Now of course there's a fascinating study to be done of how Democrats react to these things considering their love for government power and coercion, as well their favorable outlook on taxes, as hypocrisy and cowardice are not constrained to one side of the aisle. but as I've said before tariffs on our allies make no sense and are counter productive.
A goverment being stakeholder in a company isn't necessarily bad. Someone enlighten me why this is?
Usually it's done in electricity, public transport, postal or telecommunication companies and it goes the other way --> It's made into a publicly traded company and the state keeps a majority. To varying success but the idea itself isn't really unheard of or blatantly "bad".
On August 21 2025 06:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The White House just bragged about taxing Americans nearly 100 billion dollars more than Biden taxed them (in comparable 6-month periods: Biden was $55B for Jan-July 2024; Trump was $150B for Jan-July 2025).
One of the many ways I know conservatism is bullshit is that they spent 30 years talking about how raising taxes is un-American, unfree, communist, etc. and overnight, now taxes are a good thing America fuck yeah!
Rand Paul is an enormous piece of shit but I will give him the mildest of kudos for being the singular high-profile federal Republican to say taxes aren't good just because Trump is the one that raised them.
At the risk of repeating myself I'll say the tariffs are bad, as is Trump taking a cut of Nvidia sales in China, or trying to use government money to become a stakeholder in companies like Intel.
Now of course there's a fascinating study to be done of how Democrats react to these things considering their love for government power and coercion, as well their favorable outlook on taxes, as hypocrisy and cowardice are not constrained to one side of the aisle. but as I've said before tariffs on our allies make no sense and are counter productive.
Can you walk me through how it's cowardly and hypocritical to think "government power and coercion" should be used to achieve an egalitarian, prosperous society but not to harass minorities and enrich the luxury class even further?
I've been out of the loop for a bit, can someone explain to me why Texas Democrats gave in and returned so Republicans could do their gerrymandering for more seats?
On August 22 2025 00:14 GreenHorizons wrote: I've been out of the loop for a bit, can someone explain to me why Texas Democrats gave in and returned so Republicans could do their gerrymandering for more seats?
Being a legislator in Texas only pays $6,200 a year (pre-tax), in addition to being fined $500 a day for absence. Most of them have full-time jobs and families they have to attend to when there isn't a legislative session.
The goal wasn't to indefinitely delay the Texas legislature (not feasible) but to draw national attention to the redistricting, which was highly successful.
On August 22 2025 00:14 GreenHorizons wrote: I've been out of the loop for a bit, can someone explain to me why Texas Democrats gave in and returned so Republicans could do their gerrymandering for more seats?
Hopefully because all of the Democrats in every blue state have agreed to redistrict aggressively to fuck over Republicans as hard as they can in the House
On August 22 2025 00:14 GreenHorizons wrote: I've been out of the loop for a bit, can someone explain to me why Texas Democrats gave in and returned so Republicans could do their gerrymandering for more seats?
Hopefully because all of the Democrats in every blue state have agreed to redistrict aggressively to fuck over Republicans as hard as they can in the House
They have indeed. Their goal is to counter five seats with five of their own.
Another reason why they returned is because of aid for the flood victims. The Republicans prioritize victory over aid, but Democrats would like for aid to arrive, so the Democrats had a moral dilemma that the Republicans didn't.
On August 22 2025 00:14 GreenHorizons wrote: I've been out of the loop for a bit, can someone explain to me why Texas Democrats gave in and returned so Republicans could do their gerrymandering for more seats?
Hopefully because all of the Democrats in every blue state have agreed to redistrict aggressively to fuck over Republicans as hard as they can in the House
They have indeed. Their goal is to counter five seats with five of their own.
Another reason why they returned is because of aid for the flood victims. The Republicans prioritize victory over aid, but Democrats would like for aid to arrive, so the Democrats had a moral dilemma that the Republicans didn't.
Five for five is not what I was thinking of when I said redistrict aggressively lol, I was thinking every blue state with the power to redistrict every possible seat they can manage
EPT
