Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)W
Posts
7
Comments
489
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • He will. And I suspect it will be shortly (within the first two years) after he takes office, putting J.D. Stalin in charge. I suspect he has a serious illness, of which both he and his close advisors are aware, and they are keeping silent about it. It would explain Vance's presidential-nominee-style campaigning as well as a few other things about the planned transition...

    That should actually make people more scared. A narcissist cannot fully comprehend their own death. Instead, it will make him even more volatile, more violent, and more vicious. If a narcissist is going to die, they truly believe everyone and everything else should too. Ask anyone that has watched a narcissistic parent die.

    A narcissist faced with a terminal diagnosis is likely to respond with intense emotional volatility. The sudden loss of control and the threat to their inflated self-image can ignite unpredictable bouts of anger and even violence. Their sense of entitlement and the belief that they deserve special treatment will cause them to lash out anyone that does not meet their demands. This rage, driven by a deep fear of losing control, can manifest in dangerous, hostile outbursts as they struggle to maintain dominance in an increasingly powerless situation.

    Simultaneously, their manipulative tendencies may escalate. They weaponize everything. It they're dying, everyone should be dying. The narcissist's desperate need to protect their fragile sense of superiority leads to highly destructive behavior. So, if it's the case that he has received a terminal diagnosis and he wins the presidency, which polls show is increasingly likely... Strap. The. Fuck. In.

  • It's more or less an inevitability at this point, regardless of what we do. Really we're just trying to get corporations and countries to make changes so it will be Gen A's (or the following generation's) problem instead of Z.

    Normalcy now has an unavoidable term limit. The question is if we're going to shorten how long that timespan is by desperately holding onto normalcy now for as long as we can, or if we're going to start making things harder, more challenging, and less normal sooner to make the transition less painful and give it a longer on-ramp.

    Currently we seem to be choosing option A.

    For what it's worth, I've seen some friends take things a little more seriously when I've explained that currently we're going to see abrupt and incredibly disruptive changes at the point in our (Gen Z and Millenials) lives when we're at the age when we'll be least able to tolerate the changes and most reliant on others. In 40-50 years, Z and M are going to be senior citizens at best. While we may be full of distracted, dopamine-seeking denial now, by the time shit really starts hitting the fan, we're going to be extra weight on the generations struggling desperately to survive.

    Don't expect a happy retirement.

  • Scroll down to the subtitle posted as the post title. It's roughly the fourth poll on the page. Sorry, I didn't know how to link it directly to that poll.

  • Going almost triple the speed limit like that in the United States will end up being a combination of felonies, you'll be taken directly to jail, and your car will be impounded as evidence. You could serve years depending on how the felonies shake out, you'll no longer be able to vote, and the fines will be thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars. Further, lethal force on the part of an officer would arguably be authorized given the clear and present danger to the public by someone going at such an egregious speed.

    I'm not sure such an over-the-top example is great evidence of how strict Danish moving violations are.

  • I really thought Mayor Pete would have been a good candidate. He's a bulldog in debates with Republicans, but we'd probably end up with a similar problem. The obvious choice then probably would have been Gavin Newsom, but that dude just seems like such a slick, slimy douche. But I guess that would have been an advantage.

    Nate Silver's last Silver Bulletin makes the interesting point that Harris has higher likeability ratings, but she has very little clear messaging. Trump's pretty clear about what he's going to do, even if it's appalling, illegal, or harmful. And as Nate says, he has clear "personal injury attorney" messaging: I'm a slimy, aggressive asshole, but I'm your slimy, aggressive asshole. Kamala's messaging appears to be (at the surface level), we can't go back, but we're going to go forward in a different way, and I'm not Joe Biden, but I'm not not Joe Biden, but, hey, I'm not Trump! I.e., he's pointing out how muddled her messaging is.

  • I translated it into English and it says:

    "Oops... we can't find the page

    Unfortunately, we cannot find the page you are trying to access.

    The page may have been moved or deleted."

    Regardless, crazy.

  • That tracks. Trump has effectively vilified mail-in and early voting to reduce Republican participation.

    If he's losing, his strategy is to undermine mail-in votes, attempt to characterize them as fraudulent, and get as many of them thrown out as possible. Even if he can't get them tossed, he will claim that Democrats are using illegal immigrants and other ineligible voters to steal the election, stirring up his base for more extreme actions. He will point to the "impossible" Democratic bias in those votes as evidence of fraud. If those votes weren't overwhelmingly Democratic, this strategy wouldn't be as effective.

    Along with other tactics, such as challenging certification and having armed militias patrol polling places, this is part of his campaign's multi-pronged approach to undermine the election if he's losing, and they haven't exactly been hiding their plans.

  • Whatever his "closing arguments" are, according to polls, they seem to be working for some reason.

  • I know people come in all shapes and sizes, but what is going on with that guy's legs and shoes. Like is it just a perspective thing? It looks like the shoes are photoshopped onto his legs or something.

  • He's really fixated on the Harris/McDonald's thing. I honestly think with his cognitive decline, he can't comfortably conceive something he loves and something he hates overlapping like this. I know that sounds insane, but let's remember who we're talking about.

    He mentions it all the time.

  • That cat is older than dogs.

  • Narrator: it wouldn't be.

  • He hates homework and learning about... anything. To his mind, he's always already known all that he needs to know about anything, ever, now and forever.

  • OK DAMMIT. WHO FORGOT ABOUT THIS GLARING LOOPHOLE AND WHY IS IT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

  • Yeah just depends on the polling. The large pulling aggregators -- 538 and Silver Bulletin -- both have Trump over 50% to win. It upsets people, so they often downvote the information, but it's just where the aggregators (and betting markets) are at the moment.

    The discrepancy you're noticing might be the difference between EC vs national polling. Nationally polling is related to winning, but the EC is what actually determines the winner. The post I'm responding is talking about the likelihood of winning the election not opinion polling.

  • Unrelated to anything else, but as someone that likes to thrift clothing, I highly encourage you to find a good local tailor. It's surprisingly cheap and, as you've apparently noticed, it makes a subtle but impressive difference in the clothes you wear.

  • 👍

  • The problem with high speeds in the rural Midwest is that the ancient Odocoileus Virginianus Assassin's Guild will target you immediately.

  • Loss of license is comparatively mild? What do they do in the rest of europe? Public execution? 😁

  • You should get out more.