Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[TechTalk]

Even Democrats are worried. [About another unstable president like Trump having sole authority over nuclear weapons]

Democrats Want Biden to Relinquish Sole Authority for Nuclear Launches
https://www.voanews.com/usa/us-politics/democrats-want-biden-relinquish-sole-authority-nuclear-launches

“Past presidents have threatened to attack other countries with nuclear weapons or exhibited behavior that causes other officials to express concerns about the president's judgment.”

The letter, led by Representatives Jimmy Panetta and Ted Lieu, both from California, calls for officials, such as the vice president and speaker of the House, to concur with a launch order before it can be issued.

On January 8, two days after a mob supporting then-President Donald Trump stormed the Capitol, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told her fellow Democrats she had spoken with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff “about preventing an unstable president” from ordering a launch of nuclear weapons.

"The situation of this unhinged president could not be more dangerous, and we must do everything that we can to protect the American people from his unbalanced assault on our country and our democracy," Pelosi said in a letter.

The letter to Biden from the Democratic lawmakers, including two members of the House Armed Services Committee, mentions Trump by name only in the footnotes, as well as referring to concerns about the mental stability of President Richard Nixon shortly before he resigned in August 1974.

“Since there are inherent risks in the present system, as was made apparent by our ex-president, it’s our responsibility in Congress to ensure that the administration conducts this type of review in order to have a safer, more secure nuclear weapons launch authority,” Panetta told VOA.

“The old argument was that it was safe to give the president this power because the election was the ultimate safeguard,” Lewis said. “Trump’s election shows that an unfit, amoral and dangerous person can, in fact, gain power in the United States.”

Trump, during a period of feuding with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, boasted that his nuclear button was “much bigger” and “more powerful” than the one possessed by Kim.

[Alan Klein]

Maybe they're concerned about his worsening dementia?

[TechTalk]

I wasn't aware that Trump had been diagnosed with dementia. The concern was largely around his mental and emotional instability and impulsiveness in addition to his malignant narcissism.

In any event, it always pays to read below the headline.

[John Camp]

I suspect that Trump's hints that he might run again in 2024 may cause the Democrats to erect some barriers against that possibility, while they can -- like the requirement that the VP or the Speaker agree to a nuclear launch. Might be a good idea to require that all presidential candidates release all tax returns, and post them online, so the public can look at them. Goofy and unqualified as Trump is, he got a lot of votes, and if you shifted some of them around, a 2024 win would not be out of the question.

[digitaldog]

I wasn't aware that Trump had been diagnosed with dementia. The concern was largely around his mental and emotional instability and impulsiveness in addition to his malignant narcissism.

And a possible effect on his cognitive abilities after getting Covid-19, something that hasn't affected Biden (yet, hopefully never).
And this isn't a stretch:
https://www.history.com/news/woodrow-wilson-1918-pandemic-world-war-i

Woodrow Wilson Got the Flu in a Pandemic During the World War I Peace Talks
Lingering effects of the 'Spanish flu' may have hindered Wilson's ability to effectively advocate for his '14 Points' at the Paris Peace Conference.

Then there is the reporting that Trumps Covid-19 infection nearly put him on a ventilator, that his actual diagnosis was largely hidden from the public. Which explains a lot about his doctors press conferences at the time.   

[Alan Klein]

I wasn't aware that Trump had been diagnosed with dementia. The concern was largely around his mental and emotional instability and impulsiveness in addition to his malignant narcissism.

In any event, it always pays to read below the headline.

Fake news.  The Democrats are really worried about Biden's dementia.  After all, Trump is gone. 

[LesPalenik]

Maybe they're concerned about his worsening dementia?

If they are not, they should be.  Trump's Mental Deterioration

[digitaldog]

If they are not, they should be.  Trump's Mental Deterioration

OMG; that was an amazing video.

[Alan Klein]

I suspect that Trump's hints that he might run again in 2024 may cause the Democrats to erect some barriers against that possibility, while they can -- like the requirement that the VP or the Speaker agree to a nuclear launch. Might be a good idea to require that all presidential candidates release all tax returns, and post them online, so the public can look at them. Goofy and unqualified as Trump is, he got a lot of votes, and if you shifted some of them around, a 2024 win would not be out of the question.

Do you really want Nancy Pelosi to be walking around with the nuclear launch codes?    Also, how do you coordinate in an emergency?  Bad idea.  In any case, Trump was a peacenik compared to other presidents.  He quieted things down in NK, got rid of ISIS, and has been pulling troops back.  He was opposed to the wars in Iraq and Vietnam.  The only argument about him having the football was all politics. Doesn't sound unqualified or goofy to me.  Meanwhile, Biden has already dropped some bombs.  Now that I think of it, maybe Nancy should be the only one who has the nuclear football.

I don;t know if it's constitutional to require tax returns to be revealed.  That would be an additional requirement to run for president and open the doors for all kinds of requirements.  You only have to be a natural-born citizen, 35 years old and have orange skin. 

[digitaldog]

I don;t know

+1

[TechTalk]

Levine refused to answer the question, which gives me great pause.

Well, I guess that's an improvement from your previous peddling of falsehoods regarding her qualifications. First you said "she does not even have a medical degree" and even though the very next post gave her correct background as an MD specializing in pediatrics and a link to her bio; you persisted in spreading falsehoods.

Despite being given correct information, you proceeded to next claim "she has a degree and practice in child psychology"—also false. Followed by "If given the option between a child psychologist or a real MD, I would go with latter every day of the week"—despite the fact that she is a real MD.

Though multiple posts gave corrections to your false information, your response was none, silence, crickets. So I guess this is an improvement in that you're not still peddling the previous crap.

Levine's response to the crap that Rand Paul was trying to peddle seemed reasonable. She offered to discuss the complexities of the issue and then let him rant apoplectically.

https://www.phillyvoice.com/At Dr. Rachel Levine's Senate hearing, Rand Paul equates gender reassignment surgery to genital mutilation

The full hearing is available here...

https://www.youtube.com/Surgeon General nominee Murthy, Asst. Health Sec. nominee Levine, testify before Senate

[TechTalk]

After all, Trump is gone.

Given the deep damage he did to democracy, we're all the better for his departure.

[Alan Klein]

Given the deep damage he did to democracy, we're all the better for his departure.

What did he do to violate democratic and constitutional laws?  Complaining and fighting about things in court is the definition of the rule of law. 

[TechTalk]

Complaining and fighting about things in court is the definition of the rule of law.

Knowingly filling the heads of gullible people who have a cultish devotion with a torrent of lies for months: about a stolen election declared valid by the courts, the states, and Congress; claiming a landslide victory after a clear loss; declaring a nonexistent assault on their democracy; and inciting fear of losing their country if a valid election wasn't overturned has done lasting damage to democracy, the country, and its citizens. The Covid mask is to be worn over your nose and mouth, not your eyes and ears.

[digitaldog]

Knowingly filling the heads of gullible people who have a cultish devotion with a torrent of lies for months: about a stolen election declared valid by the courts, the states, and Congress; claiming a landslide victory after a clear loss; declaring a nonexistent assault on their democracy; and inciting fear of losing their country if a valid election wasn't overturned has done lasting damage to democracy, the country, and its citizens. The Covid mask is to be worn over your nose and mouth, not your eyes and ears.

Oh, is that all? 👍

[digitaldog]

Now I see why so many pages of this haven't sunken in for someone here:
https://apple.news/AyVzeCTa9TjGThw870oM2Bw

Next Time You End up in an Argument, Don't Use Facts. Do This Instead
When a discussion gets heated, a strategy based purely on data will backfire. Here's a better approach.

The problem is, our default way of responding--which usually includes spewing out "facts" that we are convinced the other party will be forced to acknowledge--almost never works.
Why not?
I discussed this recently with Jen Dalton, Founder and CEO of Virginia-based branding agency BrandMirror. Dalton addresses this question in her new book, Listen: How to Embrace the Difficult Conversations Life Throws at You.
"Humans are not rational so much as emotional," says Dalton. "We tend to rationally justify our emotions and responses." That's why any attempt to use facts or evidence will usually backfire.

Backfire indeed.

“Using facts to change someone's mind just drives them to double down on their beliefs," explains Dalton. "When someone feels a threat, they will go into protection mode and not be open to discussion. You may have dozens of sources, hundreds of facts, and it will still feel like an attack on the person you are speaking with. Explaining your facts slowly and clearly is like slow torture that can explode quickly."

Torture indeed. 😰

[TechTalk]

This is all absolutely true. The primary purpose for presenting facts and counterargument in an online forum is for the consumption of other readers still of an open mind that might otherwise fall prey to misleading falsehoods, half-truths, and lies that pervade the internet.

[TechTalk]

Oh, is that all? 👍

A condensed version of the most recent example for the purpose of online forum presentation. There is certainly a broader and deeper tale to tell.

[JoeKitchen]

Well, I guess that's an improvement from your previous peddling of falsehoods regarding her qualifications. First you said "she does not even have a medical degree" and even though the very next post gave her correct background as an MD specializing in pediatrics and a link to her bio; you persisted in spreading falsehoods.

Despite being given correct information, you proceeded to next claim "she has a degree and practice in child psychology"—also false. Followed by "If given the option between a child psychologist or a real MD, I would go with latter every day of the week"—despite the fact that she is a real MD.

Though multiple posts gave corrections to your false information, your response was none, silence, crickets. So I guess this is an improvement in that you're not still peddling the previous crap.

Levine's response to the crap that Rand Paul was trying to peddle seemed reasonable. She offered to discuss the complexities of the issue and then let him rant apoplectically.

https://www.phillyvoice.com/At Dr. Rachel Levine's Senate hearing, Rand Paul equates gender reassignment surgery to genital mutilation

The full hearing is available here...

https://www.youtube.com/Surgeon General nominee Murthy, Asst. Health Sec. nominee Levine, testify before Senate

Reasonable?

Her response was asinine and robotic; she gave the same exact answer stated in the same way twice.  It was obviously a prewritten and practiced answer that did not even address the question. 

And Paul's point was right on, that we should not be giving puberty blockers and performing gender reassignment surgery (yes, it is mutilation) to those under 18 against the will of the parents especially since 80% to 90% of children outgrow gender dysphoria. 

We are permanently damaging children based on a defunct theory because too many people are too cowardly to speak up.  The left is creating an absolute shit storm that is going to come to a head soon enough, and the real damage it is causing is being ignored by people like you.  I wonder if you will have the courage to support people in the article below?  I have my doubts. 

Hundreds of trans people regret changing their gender, says trans activist

You want to see how the country falls apart, it starts with screwing with people's kids.  Mandating this shit, along with critical race theory, against the will of the parents will lead to armed conflicts, and I would fully support those parents protecting their children.  You dont mess with people's kids, but that is exactly where the left (you) are taking us whether they (you) know it or not. 

[TechTalk]

Reasonable?

Her response was asinine and robotic; she gave the same exact answer stated in the same way twice.  It was obviously a prewritten and practiced answer that did not even address the question. 

https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/26/sen-rand-paul-misunderstands-transgender-medicine-heres-the-truth

Paul’s line of questioning reflects a wider set of misconceptions around transgender medicine — namely, that there is an epidemic of youth hastily undergoing sex changes that they later come to regret. Levine aptly responded that transgender medicine has “robust research and standards of care” — peer-reviewed standards of care designed to prevent Paul’s doomsday scenario.

Paul’s characterization of transgender health care for minors — a characterization unfortunately commonplace in political circles — is factually inaccurate, rhetorically dangerous, and medically unsound. Levine’s historic confirmation would offer a welcome departure from the deluge of misinformation that some U.S. leaders continue to propagate around gender-affirming care.

https://www.inquirer.com/news/rand-paul-transgender-rachel-levine-confirmation

He told Levine she supports “surgical destruction of a minor’s genitalia” — a mischaracterization of her views — and said he’s concerned gender affirmation therapy “can permanently alter and prevent secondary sexual characteristics.”

Models for transgender health care and gender affirmation therapy have been recommended by major medical associations, including the American Medical Association. Transgender health-care providers generally don’t prescribe hormone therapy to prepubescent transgender minors or perform genital surgery on children.

Levine responded calmly, thanking Paul for his question. “Transgender medicine is a very complex and nuanced field with robust research and standards of care that have been developed,” Levine said. She promised to discuss the “particulars” further if confirmed.

He pressed: “Will you make a more firm decision on whether minors should be involved with these decisions?” She responded again that if confirmed, she’d be “pleased” to talk with him and his staff about transgender standards of care.