How dangerous is he?

[adav8s28]

Fortunately there will less than 60 republicans in the Senate when Trump takes over again. Trump won't be able to get much passed in the Senate. He will just have to use his executive orders to make changes. Mass deportations he will be able to do.

[Jacky S]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

The bat-shit crazy Party has the control. Under the control of a madman who can't control himself. You're right, I wouldn't "point the finger" at Dumpster himself. He's too inept to actually know he's the cause. Like a puppet on a string that picks up and throws a firework. His masters, the money men behind his bankrupt plans, are pulling the strings and will be the ones we should point a finger at. He, and we all, will be at the mercy of whoever is going to keep his dumb ass from being sentenced to prison.





I completely disagree with your last statement. He doesn't care about domestic pressure. He's an outlaw in charge of seeing the laws are carried out here. The foreign pressure (payoffs of his debts) will see to it he doesn't care about doing the right thing for humanity.

I'm really struggling to be diplomatic here. The psycho is a danger to the world at large.





You are wrong. America First may not be isolationist. Putting the US at the top as a
opposed to alone is what I think you mean.

Dumpster is exactly what Putin and Xi ABSOLUTELY need. A weak character easily manipulated with praise, pussy or cash. They don't need to intimidate him. He's bought and sold already.




Yeah, me too. Even as just a wee lad I saw the news and Sunday shows where we thought he was fucking crazy. Turned our he was demented even before running for office.





He doesn't like to fight. He'll either get paid off not to, or rip someone off instead of.

We won't be surprised by his behavior this time. You're right, this time some people in the new Party will expect him do actually do shit this time. Of significance. Like you I expect the worse, not the better.

Danger ahead:

So all Apollo wanted was a good BBBJNQNS and a lot of uncomfortable times could have been avoided.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Sos yer say'n:

I think that is the wrong tense grammatically.

None taken. I don't mind being corrected. (Language arts and all.)

And I would have also liked:
Brings me to tears every time.

Originally Posted by Jacky S

So all Apollo wanted was a good BBBJNQNS and a lot of uncomfortable times could have been avoided.

I like where this went. Humor wise.

Fun and dangerous. Gotta love it.

[eccieuser9500]

Blimey!

[eccieuser9500]

Don’t assume the first amendment will thwart Trump’s pro-censorious agenda

https://amp.theguardian.com/commenti...www.google.com

Also open, or at least not fully resolved, is the question of when government investigators can compel journalists to reveal their sources. Source protection is vital to journalists’ ability to gather information – if journalists can’t promise confidentiality, sources are less likely to talk with them. This is why press freedom groups, including the one I direct, have urged Congress to pass the Press Act, which would give journalists the ability to shield their sources in most contexts.

[Salty Again]

... Blimey!

.

#### Salty

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... Blimey!

.

#### Salty

Crikey!

[eccieuser9500]

[eccieuser9500]

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

The flaw I see with the 5 Basic Laws of Human Stupidity is ignoring the most glaring critical flaw in the "New Minority", i.e.

Projection
Three Fingers Pointing Back to You
Posted September 14, 2011

Why we see the bad in others rather than ourselves.

Maybe you know the saying, "When you point one finger, there are three fingers pointing back to you." Jesus had a version of this wisdom when he said, "Don't focus on the speck in your brother's eye while ignoring the log in your own eye." When cruel accusations fly, we all need to hear the voice of reason that says, "Look in the mirror, sister. You might just be talking about yourself."

Take Serena Williams at the U.S. Open Women's Final this past Sunday, for example. After an amazing journey to the match—having overcome serious health issues that kept her on the bench for a year—Serena was favored to win the Open. I watched Serena cream first-seed Caroline Wozniacki in the semi-finals and almost didn't tune in to the final, thinking it might not be much of a game. But as a psychologist and fan of the sport, I'm so glad I did.

Serena's opponent, Samantha Stosur, surprised us all with her mental and physical toughness. Stosur swiftly claimed the first set, 6-2, before the fireworks started to fly. Williams is a tough competitor and, staring down a break point in the first game of the second set, she hit a smoking winner across the court. But before the point was over, she enthusiastically cried out, "Come on!" A champion must have fire in the belly but, as it turns out, Serena had expressed her exuberance too soon, before the point was over and Stosur got her racket on the ball. The chair umpire called Serena's shout-out a "hindrance" to the play and gave the point to Samantha. A by-the-book call, but one that flipped Serena's switch.

Fire in the belly became a torrent of attack and paranoia. Serena made an innocent mistake, which she couldn't admit. She was losing the match, which she couldn't bear. She took it all out on the chair umpire. An easy target.

Serena called the chair umpire a "loser" and a "hater." She said that she wasn't a "nice person" and was "unattractive inside." She accused her of being out to get her. It was ugly. While I could understand where Serena's tirade was coming from, I just wanted to say, "Take a look in the mirror, sister. Three fingers are pointing back to you."

We all know what it's like to get caught up in the heat of the moment. When we cannot bear to see something painful in ourselves, we want to get rid of it. We want to relocate the ugliness we feel about ourselves and put it into someone else. We say those bad feelings do not apply to us; they apply to someone else.

The fancy psychoanalytic term for this unconscious process is projective identification. We get rid of the unwanted feelings (projection) and identify them as belonging to someone else (identification). I call it the shame relocation plan.

It is no surprise that the very labels that Serena placed on the umpire were aspects of herself that she couldn't face just then. She was losing. She was hating. She wasn't feeling very nice or attractive. She didn't want to look at herself. Those are some intense feelings to bear.

From a psychological perspective, I give everyone high marks for effectively handling the intense feelings stirred up by Serena's outburst. Perhaps the umpire could have shut Serena down sooner, but instead, she took the assault without striking back. Ironically, the umpire contained her inevitable feelings about being judged so unfairly. By doing so, I think she allowed the fire to die down rather than stoking it. And Samantha, to her credit, also kept cool. Perhaps she could have smoothed out the situation by suggesting a replay of the point, but instead she kept her head in the game, even in a rattled state. And Serena managed to keep her tirade cuss-free and to not carry it forward beyond a few games of heightened aggression, appropriately channeled into her play.

The way all three women handled the outburst allowed emotions to cool down rather than erupt further. After a short time, the match mostly settled back to its previous state. Samantha won easily, 6-2, 6-3. Serena ignored the chair umpire (probably a good move) and warmly congratulated the champion (an admirable show of containment and maturity). As I often say to my patients, sometimes pretty good is good enough.

Perhaps as the dust settles, Serena will be able to look at herself and better understand what happened. We all do well to follow the three fingers, not so much in self-accusation but in an effort to take proper stock of ourselves. Because, in the end, we all make mistakes. We win some and we lose some. Even the greatest champions cannot win them all. It doesn't make us losers, or haters, or unattractive. It just makes us human. What we do with those painful feelings is what really counts.

I'll give a more relevant and ample example, using F Joe Biden, in a follow up post.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

The flaw I see with the 5 Basic Laws of Human Stupidity is ignoring the most glaring critical flaw in the "New Minority", i.e...
I'll give a more relevant and ample example, using F Joe Biden, in a follow up post.

So let's look at an example of an ID-10_T savant demonstrating the Lower Left Quadrant of Cipolla’s Four Quadrants:

Joe Biden Says You Need Nukes & F-15s Not AR-15s To Take On Tyrannical Government (7min)

The TL;DR version:

President Biden Threatens War on U.S. Citizens, Repeats Gun Control Tropes
By Mark Oliva

Just hours after Hunter Biden was convicted on three counts of falsifying the background check form (ATF Form 4473) when he purchased a handgun, President Joe Biden, his father, delivered a speech demanding more gun control.

President Biden spoke to Everytown for Gun Safety’s “Gun Sense University” in Washington, D.C., in a “rinse, lather, repeat,” performance of nearly every other gun control speech he’s delivered since he announced his candidacy for The White House. This time, he accentuated his threat to wage war on law-abiding gun owners who cherish their Second Amendment rights, pilloried those who value those rights as a hedge against a tyrannical government and vowed to defy the Second Amendment and U.S. Supreme Court by banning the most popular-selling centerfire rifle in America – the Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR).

“How many have heard this phrase, the blood of liberty washes those… gimme a break,” President Biden said. “No, I mean it. Seriously. And by the way, if they want to think they want to take on government if we get out of line, which they’re talking again about, guess what, they need F-15s. They don’t need a rifle.”

The president’s quote was off the mark. It’s actually, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” It comes from President Thomas Jefferson, in 1787 letter to William Stephens Smith, the son-in-law of John Adams.

This talk of an American president openly suggesting that he would use actual instruments of war against citizens of the United States is beyond callous. It is dangerous and must be rebuked. The people are not the president’s subjects. The president is beholden to the people – he serves the people. A threat of war on them by the government is the very reason the Second Amendment exists – to protect the people against a tyrannical government.

This isn’t the first time President Biden’s rolled out this trope against law-abiding citizens who are also law-abiding gun owners. It is as repugnant now as it was then.

There’s more he got wrong about history. He trotted out the tired line that nothing in the law says citizens could own cannons – this during the Civil War. Previously, he said that there was a cannon restriction during the Revolutionary War.

“There’s never been a time that says you can own anything you want,” President Biden said. “You couldn’t own a cannon during the Civil War. No, I’m serious.”

Once again, he’s wrong. There was no restriction on owning cannons during the Civil War. Or the Revolutionary War. Or now. It’s legal to own one. To be honest, I never really wanted to own a cannon until President Biden said I couldn’t – without proof of law that you can’t.

Turns out, there are working cannons on sale now. Anyone with between $5,000 and $13,000 can do some shopping for Civil War-era cannons today. Just last week, Virginia’s Gov. Glenn Younkin was firing a cannon to dedicate the new Culpeper Battlefield State Park. Conservative commentator Katie Pavlich posted on X, “A fact check on Biden’s speech today, one I have done many times. You can own a cannon.” The photo accompanying is Pavlich leaning against a Civil War-era cannon.

President Biden wasn’t done ignoring history to push his unconstitutional gun control agenda.

Stop Me If You’ve Heard This Before
“It’s time, once again, to do what I did when I was senator. Ban assault weapons,” President Biden said. “I mean it. Who, in God’s name, needs a magazine that can hold 200 shells. Nobody. That’s right. Think about it. They’re weapons of war.”

First, as the president conveniently ignores, the Bill of Rights isn’t contingent upon what the government believes citizens need. It’s a right. Period. Full stop. The Second Amendment takes the choice away from the government.

Second, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention admitted did nothing to reduce criminal misuse of firearms, would clearly be unconstitutional. The law expired in 2004 before the landmark Heller decision, that held the government cannot ban an entire class of firearms that are commonly-owned and commonly-used for lawful purposes. Seeing that there are over 28.1 million of these rifles – the most popular selling centerfire rifle in America and more common than Ford F-150s on the road today (the most popular selling pickup truck in America), the idea of banning these semiautomatic rifles doesn’t pass the sniff test, much less constitutional muster. Add to that the Court’s Bruen holdings, and it’s clear there is no history and tradition of banning entire classes of firearms. A sober look at the history and tradition at the time of the nation’s founding demonstrates the government encouraged citizens to own firearms that were suitable to for not just hunting but also national defense.

The president’s truth-stretching continued. He scorned the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, claiming that its protections are solely unique to the firearm industry.

“And by the way, this is the most important, the only industry in America that has immunity are gun dealers,” he said. “We gotta end it. End it now. No, I mean it.”

Except, that’s not true either. The firearm industry is protected from frivolous lawsuits that attempt to saddle businesses with the blame for the criminal misuse of firearms by remote third parties that have no connection to the companies. In other words – criminals. Gun control advocates use this to attempt to bypass the legislative process to force policies through the courts.

That protection isn’t unique. Other industries enjoy similar protections, including airlines, medical device makers, pharmaceuticals (including all the COVID vaccine makers) and big tech.

There’s more but it’s more of President Biden consistently misrepresenting the facts. The problem is, facts don’t matter to the president when it comes to his gun control agenda. It turns out, he doesn’t give much thought to threatening war against citizens for demanding their rights either.

That’s not just ignorance. That’s dangerous.

Talk about a timber in someone's own eye...