Now That Trump Has Won...

[Carborendum]

Republicans now control:  House, Senate, White House, and SCOTUS.

Liberals may think that they are going to have to bow down to the whims of Republican ideology.  Not so.

For over 100 years, the deep state has gradually instituted protections against itself.  They are now so powerful that all four of the branches of government may not be able to make a dent in that machine.

House: Looks like we'll have a strong enough majority that Johnson doesn't have to "deal" quite as much.  Hopefully, he'll make the best use of it.

Senate: We have a bare majority.  PA is still too close to call.  And it is close enough that they might have a recount or re-election or whatever they do in PA.  Mirror image in NV.

With Is 52 going to be enough?

• Susan Collins votes Republican about half the time (where a bill is partisan). 
• Murkowski is a little better, but not a dependable Republican. 
• Lidndsay Graham is all over the board.  Some years he votes 100% with Republicans.  Others, he's as blue as you can get.  And other times he's moderate.  Completely unpredictable.
• And, yes, our fellow LDS, Romney, leans more towards the liberal side among Republicans.

Because of them and the occasional other defector, there is no guarantee that we'll be able to get anything done.

So, most of what can happen along party lines will have to be through executive orders.  We'll see how far that goes against the machine.

[Carborendum]

The intelligence community was relieved to hear Trump's pick for CIA director, John Ratcliffe.  While conservative, and probably loyal to Trump's agenda, he was considered nowhere near the partisan or MAGA conservative as all the other names that were being floated about.

He has some background as former Director of National Intelligence for Trump's final year.  So all the agencies were able to assess him during his tenure in that role.  Apparently, it was a positive impression.

At the same time, Trump still denies any Russian interference during the 2016 election. Meanwhile liberals are still crying out election interference from Russia.  Let's be clear.  Both sides are right.

Russia spent about $300k in advertisements and articles favoring Trump. But to call that election interference in a race where each side tends to spend over $1Billion would be like an Olympian crying foul because a fly hitting his chest prevented him from winning the gold medal in a 50 meter.

Yes, there was interference in 2016.  But it made virtually no difference in the outcome.  Yes there was voter fraud in 2020.  But it wasn't enough to make a difference in the outcome.

[NeuroTypical]

I believe this was my first attempt at making a political meme.  Several months before Trump's first impeachment.

 

[Ironhold]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

I believe this was my first attempt at making a political meme.  Several months before Trump's first impeachment.

 

If Twitter, Facebook, and a few other social media platforms hadn't been pressured or gamed into quashing the laptop story in 2020 there's a real chance Trump would have won. It's one of the few October Surprises I recall that had a real chance of overturning a presidential election. 

[Carborendum]

Has anyone heard of 4B?  It was a women's movement that started in Korea that is now making it to the US.

No dating men
No sex with men
No marriage
No children (giving birth)

The movement began because there was a rampant mistreatment of women in Korea.  Many of the men that women were hooking up with were actually filming their intimate encounters.  As you can imagine, that was absolutely insane.  So, the movement was born.

The US liberal women have now decided to pick up the torch and copy this plan because they don't like Trump.

Korean women were rising up in protest because of a blatant and criminal invasion of privacy.  Women in America are rising up because they want to have abortions.

Wait... So, Trump is motivating liberal women to live a chaste life and avoid abortions?  Where is the downside here?

 

BTW, 4B definition: "the four no's".

Edited November 14, 2024 by Carborendum

[JohnsonJones]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Has anyone heard of 4B?  It was a women's movement that started in Korea that is now making it to the US.

No dating men
No sex with men
No marriage
No children (giving birth)

This is somehow considered radical in Korea.

The US liberal women have now decided to pick up the torch and copy this plan because they don't like Trump.

Wait... So, Trump is motivating liberal women to live a chaste life and avoid abortions?  Where is the downside here?

 

BTW, 4B definition: 4 points outlined above. The Korean 비 /bee/ indicates a negation.  Roughly translated "the four no's".

I think someone mentioned it previously on these forums.  I did not know what the 4b movement actually was or what it meant until your post though. 

If I had to gander what the downsides were, I'd guess that the No Marriage and No Children would be downsides for almost any society. 

Of course, I think much of this is to punish those who were doing things outside of marriage (and to be clear, 95% of the US population has been involved with fornication, so this is not really a democrat or republican thing, both have many immoral people within them today, as well as the US in general in regards to chastity) for their political choice in what they view (whether correctly or not) as the decision to eviscerate woman's health care rather than care about woman and woman's health. 

What was this in response to in Korea?

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The US liberal women have now decided to pick up the torch and copy this plan because they don't like Trump.

It happens.   It would be nice if folks' responses to these women would be nicer than the responses generated by the peanut gallery when someone posts this picture:

[LDSGator]

7 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

It happens.   It would be nice if folks' responses to these women would be nicer than the responses generated by the peanut gallery when someone posts this picture:

This was satire that anti-prohibition people created.  I think

 

If I had to choose between kissing some of these girls and drinking…pour me another shot please. Nothing personal. 

Edited November 14, 2024 by LDSGator

[NeuroTypical]

Whether it was or not, every time I've shown it to the peanut gallery, they respond with a bunch of personal attacks regarding the physical appearance of the women, how undesirable they are as mates, how hard they are to look at, etc.

As the peanut gallery discusses 4B, it's generating the same sort of comments.  Except it's about how undesirable/ugly/useless/etc formerly sexually promiscuous women are.  Same sort of self-righteous moral judgment, just pointed in the other direction by the other side.   I think folks on this board were discussing someone's comment of "her body my choice", and the defense was along these lines?  I might be getting it wrong, I wasn't really paying attention to that part of the discussion.

Edited November 14, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[LDSGator]

8 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Whether it was or not, every time I've shown it to the peanut gallery, they respond with a bunch of personal attacks regarding the physical appearance of the women, how undesirable they are as mates, how hard they are to look at, etc.

 

That’s what the creators were going for. As shallow, mean and nasty as it is, none of these women will win a beauty contest. That’s the entire point. 
 

I think even they were in on the joke. 

Edited November 14, 2024 by LDSGator

[LDSGator]

It’s a bit like watching Airplane! and getting mad people are copying the dialogue with their friends and laughing. 

[LDSGator]

 

[Carborendum]

25 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Whether it was or not, every time I've shown it to the peanut gallery, they respond with a bunch of personal attacks regarding the physical appearance of the women, how undesirable they are as mates, how hard they are to look at, etc.

Well, I was going to avoid it. But since you brought it up.  Yeah, based on what I've seen recently, I don't think the protest is any loss to men.  Of course, my wife and daughters are quite a bit on the attractive side.  So, I may have a skewed view.

[Carborendum]

I have to admit that I don't quite understand the appointment of RFK Jr. to HHS head.

He's an anti-vaxxer which for the purposes of COVID, I can get behind.  But apart from that, I don't really see anything in his background that would make him a good fit for that position.

My guess would be that he was only a political pick.  He was able to remain on the ballot in some very tight races and drained just a few thousand votes from Kamala.  So, he had to have a position in the admin.

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I have to admit that I don't quite understand the appointment of RFK Jr. to HHS head.

I've watched a fair number of interviews with this guy.  His legal career seems to be related to the field.  He talks a lot about the pharmaceutical companies owning the NIH and other government regulatory bodies (something which seems obvious at this point).  He talks details about America's health issues that are far above the rates for the same age groups in other countries (and the same age groups 50 years ago in the US), and the differences in the laws in the US vs those other countries related to what can go into food and about pharmaceutical use in children (e.g. doctors told to prescribe (type 2) diabetes medicines for children as young as 9 years old and not talk at all about diet and activity at all).  To hear him describe his positions sounds a lot more credible than when "reporters" call him an "anti-vaxxer" and leave out all the rest.

If all he did were clean up corruption in the various government agencies dealing with pharma, and get laws changed so that ingredients illegal in the EU are illegal in the US, I'd say he was a good pick.

[LDSGator]

6 minutes ago, zil2 said:

I've watched a fair number of interviews with this guy.  His legal career seems to be related to the field.  He talks a lot about the pharmaceutical companies owning the NIH and other government regulatory bodies (something which seems obvious at this point).  He talks details about America's health issues that are far above the rates for the same age groups in other countries (and the same age groups 50 years ago in the US), and the differences in the laws in the US vs those other countries related to what can go into food and about pharmaceutical use in children (e.g. doctors told to prescribe (type 2) diabetes medicines for children as young as 9 years old and not talk at all about diet and activity at all).  To hear him describe his positions sounds a lot more credible than when "reporters" call him an "anti-vaxxer" and leave out all the rest.

If all he did were clean up corruption in the various government agencies dealing with pharma, and get laws changed so that ingredients illegal in the EU are illegal in the US, I'd say he was a good pick.

Slightly off topic-but who would have thought a republican president would pick a Kennedy to run anything?!

[NeuroTypical]

29 minutes ago, zil2 said:

If all he did were clean up corruption in the various government agencies dealing with pharma, and get laws changed so that ingredients illegal in the EU are illegal in the US, I'd say he was a good pick.

 

It obviously worried some folks...

 

 

[Vort]

40 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Slightly off topic-but who would have thought a republican president would pick a Kennedy to run anything?!

I remember BYU getting an invitation to an international symposium or discussion on the family, based primarily on the name of the "Kennedy Center". As I recall, BYU presented an outline of family that went very much against the grain of what the symposium organizers wanted, but very much supported by the representatives of many countries, especially African and other poorer (and we may presume humbler) countries.

[zil2]

59 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Slightly off topic-but who would have thought a republican president would pick a Kennedy to run anything?!

He's not the only one.  A fair number of former Democrats have decided that their party has abandoned the things they believe in.

[LDSGator]

21 minutes ago, Vort said:

representatives of many countries, especially African and other poorer (and we may presume humbler) countries.

Yup. That explains why liberals are very hesitant to advocate for abortion and gay marriage in southern black churches. 

[LDSGator]

5 minutes ago, zil2 said:

He's not the only one.  A fair number of former Democrats have decided that their party has abandoned the things they believe in.

I absolutely agree  that the democrats have moved so far to the left that moderates no longer feel comfortable in their party.  
 

The same thing happened to moderate republicans but they are much fewer in number. 

[LDSGator]

I don’t think RFK jr is one of the “people left behind by the democrat party”. He’s still pro choice, anti death penalty, pro gun control… 

[Carborendum]

6 hours ago, Vort said:

I remember BYU getting an invitation to an international symposium or discussion on the family, based primarily on the name of the "Kennedy Center". As I recall, BYU presented an outline of family that went very much against the grain of what the symposium organizers wanted, but very much supported by the representatives of many countries, especially African and other poorer (and we may presume humbler) countries.

If we're talking about the same thing... that was at the UN.  The UN didn't have an agenda.  But many other speakers from the US were rabid abortionists who wanted to promote homosexuality at the time.  The UN reps listening to this later stated that they got the impression that the US had been taken over by "radical lesbian feminists."  Then they heard from the rep from the Kennedy Center who borrowed heavily from the Proclamation.  They thanked him for his message and said they were relieved that the US still had some level of sanity regarding the family.

The result was that the UN adopted some of the points that were borrowed from the Proclamation into some of their resolutions.

[mikbone]

11 hours ago, Carborendum said:

He's an anti-vaxxer which for the purposes of COVID, I can get behind.  But apart from that, I don't really see anything in his background that would make him a good fit for that position.

He will bring some accountability.

Right now too many Americans are on too many medications.

We should be more focused on healthy living and preventative medicine.  

The raw milk issue is a good thing to look at.  In our country we pasteurize our milk.  If any cows are sick and pass bacteria into their milk we just kill the bacteria and serve it to the population.  We should try harder to make sure that cows that are sick are taken off the production line.

[Carborendum]

56 minutes ago, mikbone said:

He will bring some accountability.

Right now too many Americans are on too many medications.

We should be more focused on healthy living and preventative medicine.  

The raw milk issue is a good thing to look at.  In our country we pasteurize our milk.  If any cows are sick and pass bacteria into their milk we just kill the bacteria and serve it to the population.  We should try harder to make sure that cows that are sick are taken off the production line.

It is interesting that one process (pasturization) designed to reduce disease has the unintended consequence of possibly raising the spread of disease.

We get our raw milk from a local dairy farm.  They do all they can to keep their cattle healthy and separated from other farms.  And if there is a sign of disease, they have shut down production for testing.  So, once or twice a year, we show up and we can't get any milk.  They are a very responsible and self-regulating farm.

I'm lactose intolerant. But the effects are diminished with raw milk.  And since I tend to have hypokalemia, the additional potassium is a welcome medication.