ViperMan

Pandemic turnout could be an interesting avenue to explore. 81,000,000 votes down to ~62,000,000 votes DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. That is inexplicable. It cannot be hand-waived. That is an unbelievable difference in voter turnout. You're talking 20,000,000 people showing up, and then not showing up. That doesn't happen without a very clear reason. Period.

Cotton. Massie. Paul (Ron or Rand). Gowdy. Beyond that I'm not sure. Positions: I don't care. We just need authentic people in office now. We have to get away from the longhouse and bureaucracy.

You could (I would) say that I'm a "math inclined" person. A 30% deviation from the norm with large numbers like this is what you call a signal. It's not noise. There is 100% something there. What is it? I can't say. But there is a signal there.

Dude. For real on this. I was NEVER a guy who doubted the previous election...NEVER. Ever. Now, when I see a quarter of the votes missing from a previous parties' election it does raise questions. What the fuck happened. It's not a necessary conclusion that there was cheating, or even that cheating was the most likely occurrence. I'm not saying that. But, it is absolutely a WILD and INSANE outlier that should be studied and understood. 80M votes to 60M votes says something earth-shattering. Earth shattering.

Boomer.

Yeah I think Nicki is a bit too "machine." I don't follow her closely, but that is my impression / read.

Nukes. It doesn't go beyond that.

Fuckin' A. Cheers and good work.

I tend to see the opposite, honestly. Day one, you had an extremely odd reaction from CNN with the naval-gazing over who had the "most attended inauguration" in history. It was clearly meant to be "stumping" by the incoming administration, and it stood out to me that CNN commentators were so hyper-focused on this mundane detail. I still remember how peculiar it seemed. Little did I realize how it would be a harbinger of things to come. In hindsight, looking back, it was obvious from the start that there was a never-ending attempt to discredit him at every opportunity. Here's one about the "very fine people" business. Look at the entire video, and tell me this isn't someone who is very thoughtful in his analysis. Who is taking a clear-eyed and practical look at the situation. Here it is with all of it's context: ALL of the stuff about Charlottesville WAS fake news. It IS propaganda. It is right there for you to see it if you are willing to take the scales off of your eyes. Nearly every bit of this has been boiled down into a shorthand used by the likes of NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, and many others to condemn him as a racist. The only part you ever hear talked about has been stripped of ALL context. Said another way - it's been lied about from the start. If he's so racist, why is he doing better with blacks this time around? What do they know that you don't? Or are you smarter than they are? What about the "Hunter Biden laptop"? Was that fake? Because many in our government with security clearances well-above mine and yours said it was "fake," and news about it was legitimately censored in direct violation of the 1st amendment. Turns out it wasn't fake, and our government compelled technology companies to censor information that was deemed "too dangerous" for you to know about. Now, do you still trust all those people? It was an actual attempt by our "betters" to leverage the inherent trust placed in them into a certain acceptable view of the world. Or is there perhaps something you don't understand about the state of things? Is there maybe something about the way politics works behind the curtain that you're not allowed to see? The signatories of that letter are basically a who's who of the people that are in charge of our little-understood global order and foreign policy. Maybe Trump is a threat to that order? https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000 I suppose all of those people are discredited in your mind now? Or were they right? Was the Hunter laptop fake news? Or was it real? Your answer says a lot about how you process facts and the value you place on truth. Your appeal to "what is more likely" is simply motivated reasoning and cherry-picking facts. That you wield a lot of important-sounding names makes you feel good and as if you have an actual argument, but you haven't presented anything. You take comfort and security in the fact that you place names like Mattis, Kelly, and others in your "quiver" of arrows you lean on, but they are merely people just like Trump. People who were in political office I might add. But I guess that's not a radar contact that's covered by your el strobe right now? You should try arguing with facts. You should look at the entire context. You should attempt to strip the emotion from your worldview and approach this with fresh eyes. Your TDS is showing. At this point, I want Trump to be President so all you infants can have your latent psychotic break, get past it, have your cathartic cry session, and we can all hopefully move on. I'm tired of the craziness.

And now they're saying that the guy who replaced Solemani was perhaps a Mossad agent? Imagine if that was the setup from the get-go to get him in there...smoke Solemani in order to place our guy as the head of the Quds forces...wow.

It feels good to see there are actually serious people left in the world.

We should start a thread that covers this. When I looked at my July tax bill I almost shit myself. Something must be done.

It's not a unicorn. It's a different paradigm for weighing peoples' choices and preferences. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. The author of that Columbia article has chosen a very particular way in which to count votes. He successively eliminates candidates based on multiple rounds of who gets the least number of votes. That is not the only way to count votes in such a system. He certainly knows this fact, and that he neglects to address it, and show other ways of counting and perhaps different outcomes, betrays his bias against such a system. i.e. he's pulling the wool over his readers' eyes. Take his example which you provided: 4 CAB 4 CB 3 BAC ----------> 3 BC ----> C wins 2 ACB drop A 2 CB It's a totally contrived example. In the majority of cases, the extreme candidates will be represented on the "ends" of the choice spectrum - put differently, the middle candidate will in almost all cases be the same (for example, most people would vote 1. Trump, 2. Kennedy, 3. Harris OR 1 Harris, 2. Kennedy, 3. Trump). In the constructed example provided by the author, the middle candidate is A, A, and C - this is not a likely outcome in our currently hyper-polarized political reality. Even still, I'll take him at his word that such an odd outcome is possible: this contrived example still relies on and requires a unique counting scheme to result in a nonsensical outcome. Suffice it to say, there are multiple - better - ways of executing the counting system in a ranked-choice voting scheme which that article side-steps. Opponents point to issues like this usually because they have some predilection against it - it is very difficult to exercise fear-based politics in such a system. Understand though, there are more fair and optimal ways of weighing votes, eliminating candidates, and settling on a candidate who is satisfactory to the majority of voters - which is the ultimate test and purpose of a democracy (republic). Look at it this way: we currently have ranked-choice voting, it's just a 1 or a 0. I'd much rather have a choice between a 6 or an 8 at the end of the night...and that's the purpose of the ranked-choice scheme: to eliminate the other people at the bar from choosing who you have to bang at the end of the night. Under our current system, you either get to bang the 10, or are forced to bang a dude...

Well, it doesn't just say that... Rog. Like others have said, it's very difficult for the peanut gallery to give you any real feedback on generalities, but I agree with @Day Man's assessment after having perused the AFI myself: they can pursue an FEB based on a character trait, which a lawyer would say covers everything that falls under the umbrella of officership...which getting an LOR would indicate an issue with. Many have had LOR's and LOA's...and weren't FEB'd. Looking back on my career, I'd say that CCs generally go down these rabbit holes after talking with the bros, or after a member has done something especially egregious - like doing something you were told directly to not do or lying. If it's a trust issue that led to the LOR you may have an issue. Others' advice to lawyer up is good, but that said, you're not going to be in the driver's seat, and I would be extremely cautious about trying to go offensive if that's in the back of your mind.

What were the "administrative actions"? Did you bang an E? If you bang an E they can FEB you.

Seems like he at least figured out the right side to fight for...

bUt RuSsiA Is WiNnInG!

A bank didn't just create a loan to buy stock. There, fixed it for you. And now I see where you go astray. Banks can't do that. Banks can't do what you're saying or what you think they can do. No bank is able to just issue a loan to buy something. Collateral must be put up. Either in terms of a hard asset or future productivity - usually both. If the productivity that was promised to make good on that loan isn't delivered, the receiver of the loan has their (hard) assets seized.

The only point of taxation is to generate demand for dollars. Demand for dollars forces you to work for dollars so you can pay the government in their currency. You know, render unto Caesar and all... MMT makes the case that you can print an unlimited amount of currency and pay all of your debts in it. That's a sophistic truism, and is the core of @Random Guy's world view. It's alien to the rest of us because the rest of us understand that we don't live in a vacuum. Once other people stop accepting FRNs, or start denominating transactions in something else, the game is up. That's it. It's that simple. You are a chicken on a tax farm. For the time being.

I'll give you a hint: it starts with s and ends with earch function.

Joe Biden stepping down because his judgment and cognitive ability are impaired, while instantly endorsing Kamala Harris for POTUS tells you everything you need to know about Harris.

Well you're picking odd ways to make that point then. And Putin is picking an odd way to win a war. Why draw it out? If it was winnable? I'm curious to hear why you think it's in his strategic interest to lengthen a conflict he could win.

Bro, this war is going to enter it's 3rd year and Russia won't have made it 50 miles into Ukraine. Mark my words. Compare that to WWII and how much ground was taken. Compare it to Desert Storm, which was probably an equivalent challenge to taking Ukraine. This war is not going in Russia's direction. I don't know why you keep posting, but you're not convincing us, and it doesn't seem like you've posted enough to convince yourself. Yet. But keep going. Maybe your next post will convince all of us that Russia will eventually get there.

I envision something like this: