Starting a conversation with a stranger is usually unwise

Starting a conversation with a stranger by calling a kid ugly is usually unwise. Doubly so when the person you are talking to is the only other adult and possible parent in the vicinity. Triply so when you are grown adult man sitting alone in a park assigning beauty standards to kids. But yes, it is the baby with an overbite and his mother with alternative style that are the weird ones, sure.

Don’t forget about fidget apps, so throw in some bubble wrap too.

TBF, the stereo speakers probably sound better and are certainly capable of being much louder than my phone speakers. But yeah, miles better in every other capacity.

More than that, giving food and drink to the hungry and thirsty, welcoming strangers, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, and giving comfort to the imprisoned, is literally the same as doing those things for Jesus Christ, himself, from his perspective. And, moreover, those who do those things will earn their place in heaven, and those who fail to do those things will be eternally damned to hell. It’s not subtextual. It’s not ambiguous and up for interpretation. It says very clearly that Jesus separated those who are going to heaven and hell to either side and the distinction between the groups was how they treated “the least” of his brothers and sisters. Matthew 25:31-46.

So, bad news Christian Republicans. Might want to correct yourself now before it’s too late.

An administration or official that is otherwise competent, stable and uneventful can be rocked by a single scandal. If everyone can focus on one thing, spend time researching it, and drive it to ground finding out everything about the situation, they can shine a light on it and try to make a giant political issue out of it. A mistake can be career ending if they can find or manufacture some culpability or negligence in it.

But if you just constantly make incompetent decisions, mistakes, lies, threats, scandals, military actions, crimes, etc. and never give any breathing room between them, then despite the plethora of things to scandalize, no one ever had time to run any single issue to ground and use it against you politically. It’s a high risk, high reward strategy that works, unfortunately, very well. It puts your opponents on the back foot and makes their work seem daunting, and by the time someone does put in the time with one issue to expose the details, dozens more issues have stolen the limelight.

Think about this. Years later, everyone remembers scandals under or related to the Obama and Biden administrations. Benghazi, Hunter’s Laptop, Hillary’s Emails… but despite the overwhelming number of scandals under or related to Trump, it is a lot harder to pick just one off the top of your head. The exception to that is probably the things he was actually tried for, because those got a.lot of time and focus and people understand them well, and he wasn’t in a position of power to generate a many new scandals to steal the focus away. But things that didn’t get that focus? Despite being bigger deals than any of that shit accused of Democrats, they are just blips on the radar among many. Someone might bring one up and you think, “Oh yeah! I remember that!” That’s the strategy. That’s what they are doing. Intentionally.

Robot. Always robot. And music is too loud now.

No, the reason was Reds protecting their guy and refusing to hold him to account. Even if what you suggested were part of their motivation, the optics of Trump refusing accountability and literally being dragged out, hasn’t been paying attention to the optics that Trump himself brings to the US and the GOP, specifically. It’s a pretty shit justification.

Let’s call them prison sentences and I agree.

I smoked too much and blacked out. I’m missing some thyme from yesterday.

Conservatives didnt help end slavery though. The Republicans at the time were not the conservative party. They were progressive relative to the Democrats of the time. Their was a ideological shift in the middle 20th century that swapped the party ideologies. Republicans today would have been Democrats back then and vice versa. They are claiming Republican victories of the past because they are technically they same party, but they in no way, shape, or form the same party ideologically, just the same name. It’s the ship of Theseus in policitical party form.

What’s their business?

Frankly, how would DHS even know at this point?

They did the math!

Because they are racists but they hate when you correctly point that out, so they claim responsibility for ending slavery because they think that will make them immune to criticism of their current racism.

They US just kept the name the discoverer wanted instead of giving into those British asshats that just wanted to troll Sir Davy.

It probably wasnt really a willful defiance thing. It’s likely more correct to say that we kept the name because by the time they changed it officially in Europe, we had millions of students across the country that had textbooks with the name Aluminum in it, that had already been taught the original name, and if the inconsistentcy was even important enought to consider “correcting”, it was likely deemed too costly and too much of a headache to change at the time. By the time people were buying reprints/new editions/more recently written textbooks anyway, professional chemists in the US had been calling it Aluminum for years. Given how isolated we were from Europe in the early 1800s, there was very little pressure to align with them on it, and so it stayed. The longer it stayed the more likely it was to be permanent, and here we are.

But yeah, Sir Humphrey Davy was an indecisive wishy-washy namer of elements, disseminated multiple names across the world, but somehow that is our fault when we just stuck with the one we were given and everyone else changed over nitpicky conventions. It’s not the only thing that Brits shit on about American English that is entirely their invention or their mistake:

• “Soccer” being a British term short for “Association Football”

• The season “Fall” being a British term shortened from the phrase “The Fall of the Leaf” and directly complementary to “Spring” which comes from the phrase “The Spring of the Leaf”, which they still use despite making fun of Americans for “Fall” instead of their “Autumn”, which Americans also use.

• “Dove” instead of “dived”, “pled” instead of “pleaded”, “have gotten” instead of “have got”, etc. all started in Britain but were dropped there and stayed in the US.

• “Herb” being pronounced with an audible “h”. The word is borrowed from French, where the h is silent, exactly like , “honorary”, and “honesty”. Neither country pronounces either of those words with an “h” sound, but that doesnt stop people like Eddie Izzard shitting on how Americans say it with a silent “h” despite the American pronunciation being, arguably, more correct given the word’s origins.

Side note, it is crazy how many words in English are borrowed from French, even if they are horribly mangled and unrecognizable now in a lot of cases. The British Aristocracy really had their noses shoved firmly up French asses for a lot of their history in the last few centuries.

Those are the ones they are putting air quotes around as “experts” because they disagree with them, and therefore must be crackpots.

I will revolt

Do you think JD understands the irony that posting an exerpt from Justice Thomas that is against appealing to the authority of “experts”, is, in itself, in fact appealing to the authority of an “expert”, Justice Thomas, to support his stance? His stance of course being that medical treatment of minors with gender dysphoria in a way that does anything but reinforce the gender on their birth certificate is bad medicine/science. And both Vance and Justice Thomas also, being… I see here “not experts in anything remotely to do with medical science, gender dysphoria, adolescent development, or any field at all that would inform any semblance of a valid opinion on the matter of how to properly treat these kids medically” might, in fact, make their stance a little bit non-authoritative. Maybe both of them should stay in their lanes of bad faith partisan political theatre, bribery, and forcing the sprint we are all on towards fascism. That seems to be where their real skill sets are.

Right it is also worth noting that under Minnesota law, if her were simply going to sleep with a 17 year old girl (or even a 16 year old) who was consenting without coercion or payment, that would be legal. The thing that was illegal here was the solicitation, the offering of money to a minor for sex. So he’s not even just a sleezeball that likes to find young girls that will sleep with him, he’s a sleezeball who can’t do that without some sort of incentive, so he offers money instead.

Probably three reasons:

1. They have a lot of synthetic dyes on hand that they do not wish to waste.
2. They have to secure and arrange new reliable supply chains for the natural dyes and probably arrange new processes for storing and using the dyes as they will not be 1:1 with the synthetics.
3. They may want to transition slowly, maybe product testing in specific areas to see how consumers react to the new look, taste (because natural dyes usually affect that), and labeling, and adjusting accordingly before rolling out to the whole counry/world.