Oh? So you don’t believe all Americans voted for Trump twice? You simply assumed that I personally was (A) American, and (B) voted for Trump twice? I’m not sure, because “Jesus Christ dude” doesn’t really tell me much, but I feel you think my supposition of the meaning of your rather generic accusation was ludicrous.

Holy Jesus Christ you’re fucking gone dude.

I am? Where? I was simply referring to this information. I’m not asserting it’s accurate or “totally true”, but it is evidence. Oh, yeah, this speech was kind of suspicious too. But hey, what do I know? ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Once again, your response leaves me wondering what you mean and why you mean it. You might want to go back and review the language and communications notes from your secondary school classes. Usually they’re the ones teaching “debate” and “logic” skills, too.

Simply derisively dismissing me is not the same as “proving me wrong”. It’s deflection. It gives me the sense you don’t know what’s going on, but you “feel it in your gut”.

Oh, I forgot to address the Dr. Strangelove reference. Did you know that was parody and sharp criticism of not just The United States, but of the power structures of the whole (first) world at the time? If that kind of criticism were made in the U.S.S.R. or China, Cuba, etc., of their leadership, the film would be banned and everyone involved would be imprisoned or disappeared. We’re allowed to criticize stupidity in leadership over here (for the moment). We believe it is a useful tool to try to make things better, or at least a bit more sane.

Hey, how come you didn’t get the snide arrogant insults for saying the same thing I did? I’m jealous! ;-)

I was implying nothing about any other type of societal organization. However, since you mention it, I will point out that Capitalism (which is an economic, not political philosophy) can become horrific for the same reasons Communism becomes horrific - People. Communism was a response to naked, mercantilist Capitalism. Marx’s heart was in the right place, but he was describing a Utopia.

I think Democracy (in its many forms) designed with checks and balances is a viable answer to the problem. It ain’t magic, though. People still need to ensure it remains balanced. We’ve been having some trouble with that lately. It took fifty years of planning for the authoritarians to get us here. It’s a good sign it was so difficult, but now we have to work hard to fix the mess.

Yes. I simply found it somewhat ironic that someone would point out that a Communist nation would need unions given the definition of Communism. It was to me a Monty Python level of dry humor to suggest that, and I felt my response should match that dry humor.

Thank you for the assist. You are correct. I made the fatal assumption that most people discussing such things would have the context of Mao, the long march, the various purges, the decades of poverty, the suppression and outright murder of minorities under their belt and would recognize that the statement was so obviously false that it could only be taken as sarcasm. Unfortunately, I didn’t account for people having arrogance and a sense of other people being ignorant morons by default.

sigh. I know what communism is. I also know it’s never been implemented in real life and never will be due to the nature of a subset of humans inflicted with various personality traits like Narcissism, Psychopathy, and Sociopathy… not to mention simple greed and basic envy.

I find it interesting that you first assigned to me the characteristics of ignorance and arrogance, and then pegged me to a certain nationality, thus revealing your uninformed bias against an entire nation containing over 300 million people - many of whom probably fled whichever morally superior country you call home - simply for living there.

Now, as for the assertion that government control of the means of production is the antithesis of communism, I give you first a description of Karl Marx’s vision:

Karl Marx envisioned communal ownership on a large scale through the abolition of private property, particularly in the means of production, advocating for these assets to be owned collectively by society. He believed this would lead to a classless society where resources are distributed based on need rather than profit.

Now, has it ever crossed your mind how this could possibly be implemented? I mean when you literally have millions of people collectively owning everything and therefore whatever is needed must be somehow made available wherever it is needed. Where will things be stored, and who will manage it? Who will ensure nothing is stolen from the people? Who will ensure item or resource “A” is transited from somewhere to the place it is needed? Word of mouth? Telegraph? What if nobody feels like manning the telegraph or decides not to relay the message to the next person? Heck - how do they know who the next person is?

In any sufficiently large group of people, some form of “government” has to exist merely to facilitate meeting the needs of the people being governed. So, I put it to you that the U.S.S.R. was in fact “implementing communism” by being the “people’s government” and thus, by their logic, everything is “owned” by the government. They have to know where it is, how to protect it, how to ensure there is enough of it to meet needs, etc… Unfortunately “power corrupts”. Or in the case of the Red revolution, it decapitates a revolution for freedom and democracy the moment it wins power and takes its place.

Sounds like American Evangelism. I bet they coordinate.

Damn, I took a quick look and I knew those two were shady just by the names and publishers.

Didn’t you hear? China’s been one gigantic people’s union since 1949. That’s the whole point of Communism. As you can see, it’s working swimmingly well.

Thank you - you gave me a chuckle!

eterminations that the Zionazi entity is guilt

uh-huh. got it.

So, by your statement, you believe all Americans voted for Trump twice. Another person unwilling to think before writing and also full of blind hate, I presume? I’m only guessing since those two sentences are my only insight into your personality. There’s actually growing evidence that someone (cough ELON cough) hacked the election counting machines in several states and altered the votes. Obviously, until the evidence is presented and verified it can’t be assumed correct, but Trump himself alluded to Elon’s help in Pennsylvania during a post-victory speech.

Your attacks on Harris’ character with no factual explanation is ludicrous. As for an inability to form a coherent thought, I distinctly remember her laying out clearly, concisely, and publicly several concrete policies with high level actions to reach the goals both in speeches and in debates. In fact, I heard criticism of her because she was too “intellectual” or detailed. Trump, on the other hand constantly rambles, goes off topic, uses words incorrectly and makes up whole new words. Your assertions are laughable on the surface.

You can disagree with her approach to policy, but attacking her personally in such a virulent fashion only shows you have no counter argument to her positions and are attacking her because she’s not in your “tribe”. In fact, your use of vicious nicknames gives a very strong impression that you are very much a Trump/MAGA partisan. Those people are well known to lack any kind of critical thinking and totally reject any factual information that counters their world view.

I did it recently because it was only way to update my Lenovo Legion BIOS. I bought an SSD on a stick, so it is a fully accelerated windows to go installed via Rufus.

The main problem with USB drive setups is the xfer speed of SDRAM, so I suggest you go for an SSD stick.

I had the possibly ironic thought that anybody who already feels as he does (and acts upon it) will never see his article.

I’m finding it harder to keep fighting. I’ve been at it for decades and I’ve steadily walked away from tools, media, etc., because of privacy.

Increasingly, I’m finding I literally can’t do things I must do. Set appointments, fill out forms, applyvfor jobs, or take legally required actions online and sometimes even offline without disabling my security.

We are reaching a point when we must make a stark choice: give in, or exit society entirely.

The second option is impossible to do without a community of like minded people, because we would have to grow and process our own food, make our own clothes, and build our own shelter.

Something has to give, or we will all be enslaved entirely.

Seems pretty clear to me that my country is no longer a beacon of freedom or justice. 2nd amendment resolutions are starting to look necessary.

We will know in November… Or earlier if elections are canceled as I expect.

Kudos for pointing out the complexity of the situation. Also, many cases of physical abuse are both partners. Presumably on is responding to the other.

I am suspicious of the idea that men are less likely to seek custody. Is that for “sole custody” or 50% custody?

Speaking for myself, I fought hard for 50%, as I didn’t want to deprive my son of his mother, but there are points I considered seeking full custody and did not pursue because I knew how infrequently men get any custody.

I bet other men do the same.

I was not commenting on her,or on kirk, though I have my opinions. I was bringing attention to the gender bias that by default, women are assumed to be “good” in the face of evidence to the contrary. Worse she’s not accountable for the behavior because a man might have been abusing her.

She might have very good reasons and intentions. She might be putting up a brave and strong show to shift focus on a cause she truly embraces.

The point is we don’t know, but we have a demeanor that implies something might be askance and the comment didn’t address the behavior. It fell on favorable assumptions about the gender that (I feel) would not have been applicable to a man in the same scenario. Basically, a subtle logical fallacy that warps judgment subtly.

If you really think about what I wrote, you’d see the mirror image is actually what I was pointing out. It seems kind of sexist to assume honorable intentions because she is a woman and mother.

I noticed you immediately implied I was mysoganist, though. There was not benefit of the doubt there, was there?

You also flat out accused me of stating women were worse than men, when all I called out was the framing that women are better than men.

I suppose this is where I should label you a mysandrist, but I know nothing about you and I would be attacking your character for disagreeing with me, wouldn’t I? I call out that hypocrisy in others so it would be rich of me to practice it, wouldn’t it?

My comment was a response to the implicit bias that since she is a woman, there must be some other reason than any unaltruistic impulses. Like, for example, a man who is no longer here to defend himself is the cause of the behavior due to abuse. See? It’s his fault.

Would the same statement be applied to a man? Based on what I’ve seen, he’d have received no such “benefit of the doubt”, and fatherhood would not enter the discussion because “men aren’t nurturing” (which is bullshit).