neemah.bsky.social
70 posts
28 followers
125 following
Discussion Master
comment in response to
post
He might literally believe those words, which is sad and might exemplify how deluded the ultra rich are
comment in response to
post
So what. They just left after that?
comment in response to
post
Not really, we're talking past each other. Take care
comment in response to
post
What is current is downstream from the past. I don't think it's far-fetched to suggest the origins have imprinted on its development. Certainly not here to try to persuade you
comment in response to
post
Not an expert but its founding would be a good place to start
comment in response to
post
It would need to be entirely restructured. In the case of the US, it likely isn't realistically possible to not be a settler-colonial state at this point. It started that way and was built into what it is now that way. It's built into everything about it.
comment in response to
post
Lmao. And then acting like that 6% difference is significant enough to make a sweeping claim from
comment in response to
post
There's a difference between being competent in carrying out the ostensible goals of a dept and competent in carrying out goals to destroy it or use it to harm
comment in response to
post
Is it really access when it's this selective?
comment in response to
post
Soon enough all government science will not be able to pass the most basic of peer review. Let them bar their own work from those journals and get ahead of the fact they wouldn't be accepted in the first place
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
Him running for a second term was pretty catastrophic
comment in response to
post
And inorganic compounds are chemicals too. They're all chemicals lmao. That "distinction" doesn't mean or tell people anything other than signaling "bad"
comment in response to
post
Them being relaxed about anything is something I can't imagine
comment in response to
post
Both sides
comment in response to
post
Elon Musk, buzzed off ketamine, remarked at the latest white house cabinet meeting, "......
comment in response to
post
AI photos have a certain "sheen" to them if you've seen enough of them to know what I mean
comment in response to
post
Brain worms
comment in response to
post
Weaponizing disdain is a new one😄
comment in response to
post
Silly to act like he meant any of those specific actions with those carefully vague words he chose
comment in response to
post
It would fall under taking action rather than vague, empty, clinical words (when they come out of his mouth) like "shaping public sentiment"
comment in response to
post
Original post doesn't square with itself. When that's pointed out, he double downs on his word choice, choosing not to clarify the meaning. This doesn't need an understanding of his other posts or political inclinations. Simply, you're ascribing meaning to his words that isn't provided by the text
comment in response to
post
I understand that's what you think he meant but he doesn't actually refer to some people's perception in the initial post. If you're referring to his follow up that is part of this thread I'm replying to, that clarification doesn't happen either. That's what I was addressing
comment in response to
post
Oh wait nevermind you are just describing what he said lol. My bad
comment in response to
post
It's a bit odd you're able to write this out and miss the part that doesn't make sense. If people were making predictions that you say "were right" and 'not as bad' and what came to be. Then by your own identification, those predictions were not unreasonable... Why say they were in the first place?
comment in response to
post
Yes, actually
comment in response to
post
Do your best. If it's about what I saw you posting about just a bit ago, I understand
comment in response to
post
When your seemingly knee jerk response to someone consoling someone who slips is to correct their empathy by saying "well, erm actually we don't all slip. Maybe you should figure out why you screwed up before your die", consider if that's appropriate. This wasn't someone who just entered the program
comment in response to
post
Things is you're now walking back your tone and presuppositions. There is no fool proof way to not slip, whether it's consuming a substance or by way of one's emotional sobriety. Acting like there is and assuming some moral failing (like you've done) isn't helping. Check yourself, speak for yourself
comment in response to
post
Pointing to Democrats specifically as the reason for this shift may be giving them too much credit at this point
comment in response to
post
If someone has "apparently committed a crime" they would should be afforded just as much due process as had they apparently not
comment in response to
post
Doesn't really matter who it is or what he looks like or how random he got there. If it wasn't him it would be someone else at the behest of this regime
comment in response to
post
Your not addressing anything I have replied to you about and are talking to yourself at this point. Have a nice day
comment in response to
post
That's beside the point of whether being informed has value. Your perogative
comment in response to
post
You would rather have no idea what's going on?
comment in response to
post
That's also what a report I'd seen mentioned earlier today.
Not that it can't turn into a total dissolution, unfortunately
comment in response to
post
The point of this post was that there are around ~50 cowards
comment in response to
post
Managed to say a whole lotta nothing here
comment in response to
post
If enough no votes to cloture and shutdown occured, blame could have just as much been laid on democratic senators as if a single democrat delayed the vote.
Latter case, there would've been no shutdown until Monday. when all senators would again have to find sufficient # of no votes. No difference
comment in response to
post
They literally don't want to understand your point and are in a phase of learned helplessness much like these Democrats that can't exert small amounts of pressure that (were) still available to them
comment in response to
post
Moron
comment in response to
post
It means they can vote no in the spending and pretend like they disagree with it when they just allowed it to go through
comment in response to
post
Who said it absolved anyone?
Those DEMs absolutely own their votes and the consequences of them.
comment in response to
post
Where are you seeing this?
comment in response to
post
But they gestured. We should appreciate and clap for that
comment in response to
post
Source on this?
comment in response to
post
Opportunity to splurge on a really nice foot massager or some other well-reviewed massage device
comment in response to
post
Since they wrote "zero chance", and assuming no typo, I'd feel comfortable resolving the ambiguity by inferring the chance is a singular, so they are referring to a percent or a ratio or some other singular form of chance.
Wouldn't call it a stretch either. They didn't say "there are zero chance"
comment in response to
post
Correct. Just like you could also have zero chances of something happening.
In this latter case, we are counting the number of different "chances" (e.g. 1, 2, 3 combinations of rolls of the dice) of something happening rather than the "percent chance" (x%) of something happening.
comment in response to
post
The zero in this example isn't singular. The chance is what is singular