ChestRockfield's Profile

In the thinking process we have decisions to make, these can be critical especially when the only ...

ChestRockfield comments on Feb 5, 2021:

I was wondering if there was any way we could write these two scenarios in an even more biased way before I answer.

ChestRockfield replies on Feb 5, 2021:

@Word I'm not sure anyone knows what you're getting at considering no one has answered your poll. I will say that the way you phrased them clearly does not point to a choice between two evils, as one of them is framed as supporting freedom. You further delineate the two by framing the other as supporting terrorism. Frankly, I'm confounded how you fail to see this as biased survey language. That stuff aside, are you asking * how * someone makes a decision between two evils? I don't think it's functionally any different than any other choice.

In the thinking process we have decisions to make, these can be critical especially when the only ...

ChestRockfield comments on Feb 5, 2021:

I was wondering if there was any way we could write these two scenarios in an even more biased way before I answer.

ChestRockfield replies on Feb 5, 2021:

@Word Are you suggesting that "terrorism" and "freedom" aren't prejudicial words?

In the thinking process we have decisions to make, these can be critical especially when the only ...

ChestRockfield comments on Feb 5, 2021:

I was wondering if there was any way we could write these two scenarios in an even more biased way before I answer.

ChestRockfield replies on Feb 5, 2021:

@Word You're joking, right? Your options ask respondents to either support terrorism or freedom. Anything else you write in those answers are biased by those characterizations.

There's a glitch in the Matrix.

ChestRockfield comments on Feb 4, 2021:

Can you hide a group that has blocked you? I would love it if the conservative atheists disappeared off the face of the Earth, and barring that, off my feed.

ChestRockfield replies on Feb 4, 2021:

@Willow_Wisp How do you do this? Do you have to go into their group to do it?

64 year old neighbor.

Surfpirate comments on Feb 4, 2021:

Why only male 4 month old babies? Seems rather sexist to me.

ChestRockfield replies on Feb 4, 2021:

The lung tissue from the 4 month-old female babies is a delicacy; it fetches far to high a price per pound to be wasted on vaccine creation.

Marjorie Taylor Greene Hits Back After Mitch McConnell 'Cancer' Comments

Barnie2years comments on Feb 4, 2021:

This is such fun to watch! The GOP and Trumplicans eating each other up. Now if we can keep the Democrats and Progressives from tearing things up, our future looks much brighter.

ChestRockfield replies on Feb 4, 2021:

@Barnie2years I know. We're here. [Two finger gesture pointing eye to eye] I was also wondering what that had to do with your comment...

Wake up, America!! The political right in this country has engaged in an insidious campaign to ...

nicestuff comments on Feb 2, 2021:

Interesting to see the patchwork of comments to this post. Some comments are substantive, thoughtful discussions. Others are a mixture of insults, tangential deflections, solitary questions, barren assertions, and cuteness substituting for argument. Is there a pattern?

ChestRockfield replies on Feb 4, 2021:

@DangerDave Can you email this detailed list? I'd be curious to see it.

Marjorie Taylor Greene Hits Back After Mitch McConnell 'Cancer' Comments

Barnie2years comments on Feb 4, 2021:

This is such fun to watch! The GOP and Trumplicans eating each other up. Now if we can keep the Democrats and Progressives from tearing things up, our future looks much brighter.

ChestRockfield replies on Feb 4, 2021:

I am worried the progressives that care not for practicality will fracture the left at the same time Trump fractures the right and we won't realize any advantage as a result.

So you don't want the vaccine because you're scared not knowing what's in it, or the long term ...

ChestRockfield comments on Feb 3, 2021:

As much as I hate the anti-vaxxer movement, I really wish those combating it wouldn't use non-analogous memes to try to get their point across. If billions and billions of vaccines were taken from fast food restaurants all over the world for decades upon decades, "what was in it" wouldn't really be ...

ChestRockfield replies on Feb 4, 2021:

@josephr What did I say that was funny?

Did Biden and the democrats lie about the $2,000 stimulus checks?

ChestRockfield comments on Feb 3, 2021:

The Republicans wouldn't even give up chairmanships without agreements because of the 50/50 split. If anything, this should tell people we need one more red seat to flip.

ChestRockfield replies on Feb 3, 2021:

@RoboGraham The way * you * believe voting should work is * also * an arbitrary designation, don't you see? (Lincoln also won without a single vote from a woman or black man. I think how Lincoln won may be a bit dated of a reference to support your argument. For cryin' out loud, Florida and Texas had a combined 7 electoral votes. Also, Biden's name could have been left off the same ballots as Lincoln and he still would have won, so that's not really a convincing argument. The important distinction here is that Lincoln was a major party candidate, your progressive candidate is not, so there's no telling which states they could possibly carry and which ones would untimely be must wins. Already being in an uphill battle would mean having to be a write-in in some states makes it that much more likely people wouldn't see them as a legitimate contender and refrain from voting for them. But this has been one giant side note that is basically irrelevant to the main point: your designations are arbitrary, why don't you accept that others' arbitrary designations are just as valid as yours?) The Bill Moose party is your argument * AGAINST * Duverger's Law?!? Wilson demolished the fuck out of Roosevelt and Taft and won reelection 4 years later while the Bull Moose party was still siphoning off votes. Furthermore, if the Bull Moose party had taken over as the other major party, it would have probably caused even more cycles of losses while the voters coalesced behind them instead of the quick dissolution of the Bull Moose party allowing Republicans to take back the Executive Branch in '21. The same thing happened with Perot. Clinton may not have won if it wasn't for him splitting off some of the vote of Clinton's opposition. Duverger's Law doesn't say a third party can't be created, it just says three can't be viable at the same time. Trump's Patriot Party will be the same thing if he actually creates it. It will steal votes from the Republicans and almost guarantee the win for Democrats. I understand your point about not wanting to support someone who will do terrible things, but sometimes that's just not a realistic or practical way to conduct yourself. Try to think of it less like endorsing one than preventing the other...

Did Biden and the democrats lie about the $2,000 stimulus checks?

ChestRockfield comments on Feb 3, 2021:

The Republicans wouldn't even give up chairmanships without agreements because of the 50/50 split. If anything, this should tell people we need one more red seat to flip.

ChestRockfield replies on Feb 3, 2021:

@RoboGraham So you admit that you exclude people that aren't on the ballot because the likelihood of them winning is too small. 1. Does that include all ballots? i.e. if a candidate was only on 46 ballots, would that be enough to exclude them because they would be a write-in candidate in several places. 2. Why do you exclude people that have a smaller chance of winning because they aren't on the ballot, but not people that have a smaller chance of winning because for the entire history of our country it has held true that our system can't support more than two parties? 3. Even if you draw the line where you draw the line, why can't you understand that it's arbitrary and that people like me excluding people who have no real chance of winning, regardless if they're on the ballot, is logically sound and perfectly consistent with your form of selection?

Did Biden and the democrats lie about the $2,000 stimulus checks?

ChestRockfield comments on Feb 3, 2021:

The Republicans wouldn't even give up chairmanships without agreements because of the 50/50 split. If anything, this should tell people we need one more red seat to flip.

ChestRockfield replies on Feb 3, 2021:

@RoboGraham Well, technically, that's not true. What you think the best candidate would be would probably almost always be a write-in candidate. The same would be true for most everyone else. The reason you don't write in who you think would be the very best person for the job every election is because you know the chances of 50% or so of the population also writing in that very same name is infinitesimally small. So you give up a little of what makes the perfect candidate perfect * in your eyes * for an increase in the possibility they could win. Using that same logical reasoning, people like me don't vote third party because we know the possibility of enough people voting third party to win them the election is also infinitesimally small. You agree with me 100% in principle, we just differ on the likelihood of an impossibly rare event actually taking place.

Did Biden and the democrats lie about the $2,000 stimulus checks?

ChestRockfield comments on Feb 3, 2021:

The Republicans wouldn't even give up chairmanships without agreements because of the 50/50 split. If anything, this should tell people we need one more red seat to flip.

ChestRockfield replies on Feb 3, 2021:

@RoboGraham I can't have that whole discussion again. The fact of the matter is that if you want someone other than the candidate from either the Republican or Democrat party to win, they need to be from a party that supplants one of the two major parties, which is incredibly hard and causes several cycles of losses (which the Republicans may be on the verge of with the Patriot party). The way out system is set up, third party candidates cannot win. The only other way is like something I suggested to you before that you rejected: a system that would allow all those who would * like * to vote for a progressive to know when a critical mass of support has been reached so they know they could vote third party without wasting their vote or worse, handing the election to the opposition. So, until one of those two things happens, your claim that, "We could vote for people are both aren't pussies and do give a fuck about the non-millionaires" is not feasible because it won't actually result in fixing the problem. It would be like saying "I don't want to clean my house, but I also don't want to live in a mess, so instead of cleaning or living with it, I'll just wish that magical gnomes will come in at night and clean it up for me." Just like still being in a messy house the next morning, voting for a third party candidate will still leave you with either pussies or people that hate the poor. And please, before you say, "But if * enough * people vote..." I already agree with you on that, I just know "enough people" is impossible unless an avenue is provided for those people to get there. Another question I have is why haven't the progressives made local pushes in highly progressive areas like the Tea Party has in conservative areas (or like QAnon is starting to)? Showing you have enough support in localities to win some seats does a lot for credibility for national elections.

Did Biden and the democrats lie about the $2,000 stimulus checks?

ChestRockfield comments on Feb 3, 2021:

The Republicans wouldn't even give up chairmanships without agreements because of the 50/50 split. If anything, this should tell people we need one more red seat to flip.

ChestRockfield replies on Feb 3, 2021:

@RoboGraham Look, if the question is, "Are the Democrats pussies?" the answer is obviously yes. But if the follow up is, "Should we vote for the horrible people that give exactly zero fucks about the non-millionaire citizens instead?" you should be smart enough to know the answer is no. Beyond that, I can't help you.

Much can be explained by that

ChestRockfield comments on Feb 2, 2021:

Or QAnon...

ChestRockfield replies on Feb 3, 2021:

@1BrentMichael Good point.

There's a difference between "belief" and "working assumption".

p-nullifidian comments on Feb 1, 2021:

In my experience, beliefs don't require emotions, but personal assumptions almost demand them. I believe the sun will rise, as predicted, tomorrow--I have never seen or heard of a day when this did not happen, and I have no reason to doubt this belief. I have a working assumption that when I ...

ChestRockfield replies on Feb 2, 2021:

@skado I'm good with all that, and it did clarify what you were trying to say in the original post. I'm just sad humans don't make more of a concerted effort to make language less of an imprecise, shitty thing.

There's a difference between "belief" and "working assumption".

p-nullifidian comments on Feb 1, 2021:

In my experience, beliefs don't require emotions, but personal assumptions almost demand them. I believe the sun will rise, as predicted, tomorrow--I have never seen or heard of a day when this did not happen, and I have no reason to doubt this belief. I have a working assumption that when I ...

ChestRockfield replies on Feb 2, 2021:

@skado But is there? Per person, these are all relative e.g. if I were a person that was so absolutely certain the Earth was flat that I spend zero energy trying to verify it, and I live my life in complete confidence that it is true. But weren't we taking about emotional attachment being the difference not level of certainty? I think we're losing the thread here.

The ACLU Responds to the Events at the U.S. Capitol Building - YouTube

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 9, 2021:

There's a 'no' vote. Apparently this poll is open to the conservative atheists group.

ChestRockfield replies on Feb 2, 2021:

@Alienbeing So you called me a bigot, which you couldn't support. I showed why you were wrong, and you just resorted to more name-calling saying I was a child. You threw a little tantrum and said you refused to associate with me, but then couldn't shut the fuck up and walk away (but * I'm * the child). You're obviously butt hurt by the clear and well-documented association between racists and conservatives and/or by the fact that I pointed it out (which tells us a lot about you). And since you couldn't refute my point or support your own, your argument has devolved to the point of being a near 70 year-old dude with his fingers in his ears repeatedly and inappropriately yelling 'bigot' at the top of his lungs at some random dude on the internet. You really don't have anything better to do with your time? That's a sad fuckin' life, old man. Now * I'm * done with * you. *

There's a difference between "belief" and "working assumption".

powder comments on Feb 1, 2021:

I'd go with that; "belief" has everything to do with emotion whereas "working assumption" is more based in the real, materialistic world we find ourselves in. Eg every day I assume/ believe my car is roadworthy so don't bother function testing everything before I drive.

ChestRockfield replies on Feb 2, 2021:

@DangerDave That's a good point. I wonder if it's a symptom of how they were raised or a possible reason they were able to become wealthy or maybe some of both?

The ACLU Responds to the Events at the U.S. Capitol Building - YouTube

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 9, 2021:

There's a 'no' vote. Apparently this poll is open to the conservative atheists group.

ChestRockfield replies on Feb 2, 2021:

@Alienbeing "There was no name calling, are you a child?" "you are a bigot" Brilliant.

There's a difference between "belief" and "working assumption".

p-nullifidian comments on Feb 1, 2021:

In my experience, beliefs don't require emotions, but personal assumptions almost demand them. I believe the sun will rise, as predicted, tomorrow--I have never seen or heard of a day when this did not happen, and I have no reason to doubt this belief. I have a working assumption that when I ...

ChestRockfield replies on Feb 2, 2021:

@p-nullifidian, @skado See, I'm still thinking you could switch the phrases 'working assumption' and 'belief' in that comment without it making any difference.

There's a difference between "belief" and "working assumption".

powder comments on Feb 1, 2021:

I'd go with that; "belief" has everything to do with emotion whereas "working assumption" is more based in the real, materialistic world we find ourselves in. Eg every day I assume/ believe my car is roadworthy so don't bother function testing everything before I drive.

ChestRockfield replies on Feb 2, 2021:

@powder, @DangerDave I think you are both correct on this one. Rich people are less likely to be found guilty AND less likely to suffer the average amount of consequence for the offense when they are.

There's a difference between "belief" and "working assumption".

ChestRockfield comments on Feb 1, 2021:

I don't think beliefs have to necessarily have anything to do with emotion. I've had beliefs about which sports team would win in a contest when I couldn't possibly have given less of a fuck about it. I actually don't see much of a difference between those things at all as they can both be used for ...

ChestRockfield replies on Feb 2, 2021:

@powder Yeah, it was based on a multitude of things for various games, once was based on the number of players for one team that were on the DL for instance. Also, while I said 'believe' a certain team would win not 'feel' a certain team would win, the swapping of those words in your response without really changing it kinda shows how interchangable they are. To be honest, though, I think the phrase 'feeling about something' is a misnomer. Anytime someone says it, it would be more apt to say they think (or believe) it, but again, it's just semantics. @skado Ah, I see where you were going now. I think it may have more to do with the person, though, not what the belief/working assumption is about. When I stopped believing in god, it wasn't traumatic for me at all, I simply recognized there was no logical reason to believe and I moved on. I'd be curious to know if there were many others that also lost faith without it being a problem for them. Also, would it be a belief or a working assumption one's significant other wouldn't cheat on them? Some are devastated not only by the act, but also the realization their beliefs were so wrong, and some, maybe people who cheat/have cheated themselves, don't take it too hard at all. The more I think about it the less I see a particular characteristic that delineates how these two should be (or are routinely) used.

The ACLU Responds to the Events at the U.S. Capitol Building - YouTube

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 9, 2021:

There's a 'no' vote. Apparently this poll is open to the conservative atheists group.

ChestRockfield replies on Feb 1, 2021:

@Alienbeing My logic is airtight. You have not tried to refute it in any way, you just make baseless claims and resort to name-calling.

The ACLU Responds to the Events at the U.S. Capitol Building - YouTube

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 9, 2021:

There's a 'no' vote. Apparently this poll is open to the conservative atheists group.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 31, 2021:

@Alienbeing What happened to you not associating with me, liar? If you keep associating with people you think are bigots, that makes you a bigot...

From what I have read, on the net this morning, Dump's "faithful-to-the-end" legal team is ...

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 31, 2021:

He'll remember that when he gets acquitted and runs for President again.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 31, 2021:

@mcgeo52, @Diogenes As much as I would love all of that stuff, I doubt we'll see him held accountable for anything.

The ACLU Responds to the Events at the U.S. Capitol Building - YouTube

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 9, 2021:

There's a 'no' vote. Apparently this poll is open to the conservative atheists group.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 31, 2021:

@Alienbeing Is not unreasonable to think that a group whose membership includes many that fly Nazi and confederate flags, chant "Jews will not replace us", wear swastikas to rallies, and has the support of several white supremacist groups is more likely the group that has members that will declare they won't resist white supremacy. I don't think you know what the word bigot means, but I'm fine with someone so obtuse not responding to me anymore.

The ACLU Responds to the Events at the U.S. Capitol Building - YouTube

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 9, 2021:

There's a 'no' vote. Apparently this poll is open to the conservative atheists group.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 30, 2021:

@Alienbeing Obviously you don't. Assuming a conservative was the one that voted no in no way means I think * all * conservatives are racists. Let's try an analogy. If someone went into a store and bought a rosary, you may assume they were a Christian. That's a fair assumption based on an educated guess. But that in no way means you think * all * Christians buy rosaries, or that * only * Christians buy rosaries.

I love this.

FearlessFly comments on Jan 30, 2021:

. . . which "this" are you referring to ?

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 30, 2021:

Confusing people who click on this post. 😝

The ACLU Responds to the Events at the U.S. Capitol Building - YouTube

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 9, 2021:

There's a 'no' vote. Apparently this poll is open to the conservative atheists group.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 30, 2021:

@Alienbeing If you're saying I implied all conservatives are racist, you don't know how to read.

What are your strategies to deal with the false equivalency rhetoric of social conservatism cultists

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 29, 2021:

If you find a silver bullet, let me know. Though I'm sure they know what they're doing and know it's total bullshit. They lie directly to our faces without batting an eye. All they care about is power, so whatever they have to do, like trick as many people as they can with fallacious statements of ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 29, 2021:

@domos Normally I'd agree, but then you see stuff like this, and you think, 'Yeah, these are just slimy, rotten motherfuckers that don't give a shit about anyone and will spout garbage they know is a lie any time they need to, to win whatever game they're playing.' https://youtu.be/kw8SSQHQitg

A new species found. 42 feet long, how could we have missed it until now? [npr.org]

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 29, 2021:

Super confused how they could have just discovered it, but also know how many of them exist.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 29, 2021:

@glennlab Ah, thank you. I must have missed that part.

The ACLU Responds to the Events at the U.S. Capitol Building - YouTube

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 9, 2021:

There's a 'no' vote. Apparently this poll is open to the conservative atheists group.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 29, 2021:

@Alienbeing I implied what?

The ACLU Responds to the Events at the U.S. Capitol Building - YouTube

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 9, 2021:

There's a 'no' vote. Apparently this poll is open to the conservative atheists group.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 28, 2021:

@Alienbeing I was pointing out that your question seemed to imply I was saying 'all conservatives are racist' when that could not be inferred from what I wrote. I do not need to know the percentage of conservatives who are racist to make an educated guess that someone who openly states they won't resist white supremacy is probably a conservative. Also, take your own advice. See that punctuation at the end of my second sentence? That's one of those question mark things you want on a rant about. I was * asking * if you were saying that because since I did not, I was wondering why you were bringing it up.

Should these pre-emptive medicines developed for Covid-19 be classed as "vaccines"?

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 27, 2021:

If a thing prevents contraction and/or spread of a pandemic-level antigen, I see no problem with a clarification that allows for a mandate. I'm looking at the intent of the mandate and our ability to adapt so that the intent of our rules and laws can be followed even when the letter of them can't ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 28, 2021:

@powder You kinda ignored most of my points. So you said there's never a situation where consent isn't necessary. I'll make it simple, the punishment for being an anti-vaxxer is that your children can't attend public school. What do you suggest the punishment should be for refusing to take a treatment as suggested in my last comment? Should people be allowed to continue to roam about in society potentially spreading the infection?

I wonder if they realize that he called them that?

anglophone comments on Jan 24, 2021:

I fully support a war on white supremacists.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 28, 2021:

My comment was deleted because it was not clear I was talking about the military reactivating their war against Nazis, not civilians starting one.

I just saw a headline that says Hunter Biden will lead the DEA. It HAS to be false, right?

CourtJester comments on Jan 27, 2021:

He’s actually the White House advisor to China now. No Joke.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 27, 2021:

Except joke. https://.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/12/03/joe-biden-says-hunter-wont-work-jobs-that-conflict-with-presidency/amp/

Should these pre-emptive medicines developed for Covid-19 be classed as "vaccines"?

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 27, 2021:

If a thing prevents contraction and/or spread of a pandemic-level antigen, I see no problem with a clarification that allows for a mandate. I'm looking at the intent of the mandate and our ability to adapt so that the intent of our rules and laws can be followed even when the letter of them can't ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 27, 2021:

@powder Wow. There's a lot to unpack there. I'll try to break it down into sections. 1. I completely understand your point about consent and the ability to refuse. I personally don't feel the influenza vaccine should be a condition of employment, but in no way am I an anti-vaxxer. For me, I don't think that the benefits outweigh the downside. I personally get a very bad immune response most of the time I've been forced to take it. However, I haven't had influenza for probably near two decades. Add to those two things the fact that many years the vaccine is so ineffective is almost irrelevant. If these or similar sets of circumstances were what we were talking about, I would fully support your position. Now I don't know exactly the mechanisms is action for the medications/treatments you're referring to, so I'm not arguing specifics. I'm arguing the overall claim that things not meeting the specific wording shouldn't matter if they meet the intent of the policy. 2. Consent as a necessary requirement. While I believe that getting someone's consent for something is a lofty, noble goal that should be strived for to the best of our ability, consider an extreme scenario: Ebola has become aerosolized and it is incredibly infectious with a death rate near 100%. It has an incubation period of almost two weeks, the second half of which you can shed the virus before you even know you have it. A "treatment" has been developed that prevents you from shedding the virus by blocking it's ability to cross into the lungs, but it doesn't protect you from getting infected (thus, not a vaccine). 2.a. In this scenario, would you agree that forced treatment is in order if people aren't willing to consent? 2.b. What do you think should be the punishment/containment parameters for someone that refuses? 2.c. If you can agree that there are circumstances where forced vaccine or non-vaccine treatments are warranted, then you already agree with me in principle, there's just a disagreement over the specific parameters we deem essential enough to mandate forced treatment. That, however, was not the point of my response to try to agree what the specific parameters should be, but rather the principle of the policy. 3. Definition of a vaccine. Language is imprecise, and often fails us miserably. You are in the weeds on definitions here, and it is doing a disservice to your argument. Try to step back and look at intent and purpose over specific definitions. If you use the example above and there is a treatment that prevents the shedding of the virus, but not the contraction of it, should it matter if it accomplishes immunity through population immunity instead of individual immunity? The intent is to stop the spread and protect people which it ultimately can do if ...

There has been an awful lot of talk lately about how Trump is on the outs, has no power, has no ...

Sticks48 comments on Jan 26, 2021:

Most of the Republican Senate hate Trump, but still fear the base which still love Trump. Their fervor may last or it my dim over the next couple of years. Time will tell.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 27, 2021:

@Sticks48 The is no such thing as 3 viable parties in our system of government. Either there will be 1 viable party because the other has fractured fairly evenly, or a new one will form that will ultimately absorb most of the old one as it dissolves. If Trump forms a party (I hear he's going with "Patriot Party" and his followers stick with him as I suppose they will, the current GOP will die and everyone in it will either waste their votes voting 3rd party like the Bernie Bros did, or they will get the fuck in line and follow Trump like they have been doing for 4+ years. Republicans love power too much, so I assume it will be the latter. Not sure if Trump will follow through, but if he wants to, he can easily do it. The McConnell thing was the leaked stuff about him supporting the impeachment trial and maybe even voting to convict himself as a way to excise a toxic Trump from the party. It was all bullshit. It added a little more fuel to the fire of "this trial is unconstitutional" because it was delivered after Trump left office. And 45 fucking GOP Senators voted to not even have a trial. My point is that just because reputable sources report something, and it sounds legit, still doesn't mean it is, especially when the GOP is involved.

There has been an awful lot of talk lately about how Trump is on the outs, has no power, has no ...

yvilletom comments on Jan 27, 2021:

I won’t say Trump is the GOP. I will say evangelicals are the GOP,.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 27, 2021:

@yvilletom I suppose is that happened he could lose them, but most of the religious leaders fell in love with him * after * he cheated on his 3rd wife who was having his 5th child by raw-dogging a porn star. I don't see them jumping ship either... For your consideration: https://youtu.be/1YFLBjR-swo

There has been an awful lot of talk lately about how Trump is on the outs, has no power, has no ...

Sticks48 comments on Jan 26, 2021:

Most of the Republican Senate hate Trump, but still fear the base which still love Trump. Their fervor may last or it my dim over the next couple of years. Time will tell.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 27, 2021:

@Sticks48 Well, obviously the thing about McConnell was fake news and we didn't know it...

There has been an awful lot of talk lately about how Trump is on the outs, has no power, has no ...

yvilletom comments on Jan 27, 2021:

I won’t say Trump is the GOP. I will say evangelicals are the GOP,.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 27, 2021:

He owns them though. When he forces his wants to be their wants, they become one and the same.

There has been an awful lot of talk lately about how Trump is on the outs, has no power, has no ...

Sticks48 comments on Jan 26, 2021:

Most of the Republican Senate hate Trump, but still fear the base which still love Trump. Their fervor may last or it my dim over the next couple of years. Time will tell.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 27, 2021:

@Sticks48 Well, not him, the voters. The voters won him the primary and they had to get in line, because that's what Republicans do. Maybe they are having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that a racist pile of shit is what near have of the electorate feels represents them. But that's not going away. So they need to deal with it now and take their lumps (which I don't see happening), or continue to deal with the devil and suffer whatever consequences follow. And I don't trust what the reporters say the GOP Senators said in private. There was talk a couple weeks ago that suggested McConnell may vote to convict and look what happened. They are using the press to manipulate us.

The ACLU Responds to the Events at the U.S. Capitol Building - YouTube

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 9, 2021:

There's a 'no' vote. Apparently this poll is open to the conservative atheists group.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 27, 2021:

@UrsiMajor Some views, like being a Nazi, * used * to get you shot, now we treat them as just a difference of opinion. If wanting to live in a world where the Allied militaries still hunted down Nazis and killed them means I want to live in a bubble, point me to the bubble store.

The ACLU Responds to the Events at the U.S. Capitol Building - YouTube

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 9, 2021:

There's a 'no' vote. Apparently this poll is open to the conservative atheists group.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 27, 2021:

@Alienbeing I didn't say that. Are you saying that? A lot of them are though, and generally the more brazen racists are conservatives, so that's why I assumed someone who would declare they're cool with racists is most likely a conservative. Do you have some evidence to suggest that my assumption that the party who has members that fly Nazi flags, chant "Jews will not replace us", wear swastikas to rallies, and has the support of several white supremacist groups is not likely to be the party that has members that will declare they won't resist white supremacy? I'd be interested to see that.

There has been an awful lot of talk lately about how Trump is on the outs, has no power, has no ...

Sticks48 comments on Jan 26, 2021:

Most of the Republican Senate hate Trump, but still fear the base which still love Trump. Their fervor may last or it my dim over the next couple of years. Time will tell.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 27, 2021:

I don't see much of a difference between them hating him but treating him like they love him and actually loving him. The end result is the same. If they don't have enough of a spine to create distance from him now, they won't magically grow one later. Fuck, even Republicans that already said they're not running for reelection won't cross Trump. Portman from Ohio claims he's not running, but still voted to declare the impeachment unconstitutional. How is that not an indication that they love him instead of just fearing losing his loyal voters? Trump 2024 merch is already on !! The problem the GOP is having isn't going away any time soon. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08MCHRVPJ/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_fabc_edBeGbFJCRJDF

There has been an awful lot of talk lately about how Trump is on the outs, has no power, has no ...

RussRAB comments on Jan 27, 2021:

Ever since I saw an article similar to the one linked here, I have to wonder how much of Republicans' desire to give trump a break (as Niki Haley put it) comes from behind the scenes. Money in politics is a huge problem and can only lead to corruption. Why anyone thought not limiting and controlling...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 27, 2021:

I'm not sure how behind the scenes the motivation is. They seem to telegraph everything for us. They know Trump owns his voters, and they want those votes so they can't cross him no matter how toxic he is.

For real?

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 26, 2021:

Just sayin'.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 26, 2021:

@Willow_Wisp I'm confused; Totah came out as trans in 2018.

SCHUMER IS NOT PUSHING FOR SENATE TRIAL HARD Chuck Schumer said today that the Senate will ...

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 26, 2021:

I don't think it'll matter, honestly. Anywhere they don't run * his * candidate he'll primary and run 3rd party, convicted or not.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 26, 2021:

@St-Sinner Some do. I'm still confused about how the conviction changes anything though. That was part of the point you were making, yes?

SCHUMER IS NOT PUSHING FOR SENATE TRIAL HARD Chuck Schumer said today that the Senate will ...

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 26, 2021:

I don't think it'll matter, honestly. Anywhere they don't run * his * candidate he'll primary and run 3rd party, convicted or not.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 26, 2021:

@St-Sinner What do you suppose is the appreciable connection between a particular candidate and Trump that prevents them from doing anything if Trump was convicted?

Recently I was able to watch a movie and then a movie serial from 1932.

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 25, 2021:

I'm usually not into old movies and shows, but I watched "Witness for the Prosecution" and "Dial M for Murder" recently and they were both quite good.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 26, 2021:

@Ray13 Well, I can't recommend it enough. I just watched it again with my mom who had never seen it and she loved it. Hackman was incredible.

Biden is just a few days in and he's already a big disappointment.

Redneckliberal comments on Jan 24, 2021:

BIDEN IS CORRECT ACTUALLY...STOPPING THIS PANDEMIC IS LIKE STOPPING A FREIGHT TRAIN. YOU CAN APPLY THE BRAKES BUT YOU WILL NOT STOP THE TRAIN FOR AT LEAST TWO MILES....ITS CALLED MOMENTUM...THE TRAIN AND THE VIRUS HAVE ESTABLISHED MOMENTUM

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 26, 2021:

Thank you for being a lone voice of reason in a sea of people who can't recognize obvious truths.

Recently I was able to watch a movie and then a movie serial from 1932.

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 25, 2021:

I'm usually not into old movies and shows, but I watched "Witness for the Prosecution" and "Dial M for Murder" recently and they were both quite good.