I’ve no doubt that’s the case (e.g. Clinton’s likely in there, for example), although I expect it’s a ratio much like then FBI director Wray during Trump’s first term testified regarding propensity towards politically-inspired violence: more than twice as likely to be conservatives doing it.
Considering the major infighting that’s been going on the past few weeks, I can’t help but disagree. They may have tried sticking together more than they are now for the sake of winning the election, but there might have been just enough friction to sway things if Trump was proven to have been on the list.
As far as protecting donors, they are going to be found out sooner or later anyway - what better way to bury it than by the distraction of it ensnaring a presidential candidate? By the time things got around to them, everybody would be sick of the subject anyway.
Doesn’t really matter. The assholes along their enablers and sycophants have done incredible damage to the country in just six months - it’s already barely recognizable as the great country it once was, and I’ve little hope it’ll survive another 3.5 years of this disaster. This whole Epstein thing has been the first time there’s been any hope of putting an end to the destruction before it’s too late - let me fantasize.
I’ve seen less than a handful of vague indications that was a possibility, while there’s numerous credible accusations that have been made against Trump. Maybe get your head out of the cult of blind hatred, and start dealing with some facts?
Ahh… Who am I kidding? You’re obviously too committed (or should be - to a mental institution) to face the actual fact that you voted for the true scum of the earth.
I mean - just look at your chosen screen name. Says it all. And before you go there, “ape” is an old usage of the word as a verb meaning “to imitate” - so my name means I’m imitating your sanctimoniousness & feeding it right back at you. Enjoy!
Did you miss the “roll eyes” emoji? Regardless - Trump’s definitely the worse of the two in that department. Biden may have wanted to, but he seems to have (mostly) restrained himself. Trump? Not so much.
ETA: I have not seen a single trustworthy indication that Biden is in the Epstein files.- you’re revealing your cult-induced (or worse, deliberate choice of) blindness to the full set of facts and their place in the big picture.
It’s a shame Biden was “too decent” 🙄 to get it done while he was there - the whole election could have gone a another (better) way.
But they know their competitions are doing to adopt the same type of tech, so where are those customers going to go when they have no choice?
Well, I’ll admit I’m older and perhaps less sensitive to that notion than I should be - particularly as I never heard that term until the past decade or so. There are times when I can definitely see the issue, and then there’s times like this that I just don’t - or just think the sensitivity towards the topic is being taken too far beyond reasonable expectations. Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on the point.
Oh, and maybe you should consider not thinking of the term “OCD” as an insult. Maybe that’s where our difference in perspectives lie: I simply don’t consider it an insult, but what it actually is: a mental condition (or perhaps it’s more accurate to say it’s a symptom that’s indicative of one). People are okay talking about depression, ADHD, etc. - why not the same for OCD?
It’s a factual condition, not an insult - unless someone decides to make it one, which unfortunately happens all the time. Some people use the word “Jew” as a slur - does that then make all utterances of the word a slur? No, that’s absurd. Intent matters, and the same applies with any other words/terms like OCD.
I suggest listening to and/or watching some early George Carlin routines like Class Clown. Much of his comedy was based upon how words are used and interpreted.
BECAUSE it was a “minor correction” made in a context where most would not consider it important or even germane as it was a casual conversation, not a classroom or office setting.
Again, you chose the harshest possible interpretation with “accuse” - as if I were attacking, berating, or belittling them. I didn’t say anything aggressive like “Who cares? Take your OCD issues & stuff it where the sun don’t shine!” (I’m sure worse could be said, too - I’m just not thinking in such a manner.)
I (and many others, it seems to me) find it better to be accepting and honest of one’s own faults - more trust and respect is earned from others that way, as well as gaining a level of self-confidence from facing your demons. If the person who I was addressing actually has an issue with OCD (or any other mental divergence from “the norm”), then acknowledging and accepting that fact is commonly understood to be the first step towards taking control of it. If they don’t have such an issue (or think they don’t), then being made aware of how their actions come off to others isn’t a bad thing, either.
Either way, accepting the facts of how others perceive you, and being able to laugh about how absurd or silly those interpretations can sometimes can be shows that you don’t take yourself or others too seriously, and that you know who you are and are comfortable with it. IMHO, this is a level of maturity everyone should try to reach as soon as they can because once you have that larger perspective on the world, the easier it becomes to work with it.
As I said, it was not an insult - that you choose to interpret it that way is on you.
Also I wonder if you’re so deeply insecure that you spend your time trying to find ways to look down upon others to momentarily make yourself feel smug and superior. The problem with that approach is that it’s like being addicted to drugs: the effect doesn’t last, and becomes weaker every time - so you wind up doing it more and more in a pointless effort to regain the same high as the first time you did it, which only serves to make you seem like more and more of an asshole.
Oh, get over yourself. It was in no way an insult unless you’re looking for it to be one. We all have our challenges - some more significant than others, of course - which makes being able to laugh at ourselves an important means of relieving the stress of those challenges.
I have ADD, depression, & some other mental challenges of my own. My spouse has several physical health issues (which cause additional mental health issues). Nobody understands or cares & we just have to deal with it.
I get the sensitivity to an extent, but you need to learn to distinguish between malicious intent versus those just trying not to take things too seriously (or in this case, trying to encourage someone else not to). None of us are perfect, and that includes you.
The important thing is that we try our best to not only get through this crappy excuse for a life ourselves, but also to help others do so when we can. My attempt to inject some mild humor into a situation where someone was being a bit overly condescending, while also having fun with the accidental double-post of a comment was just that - some light-heated poking of fun at something being taken too seriously.
Well… if you get really good at what you do, then it’s often said that you “have it down to a science.”
^ This is a pendantic person with OCD ensuring that they’ve done their thing.
EDIT: fix erroneous spelling. I’d say it’ll teach me to do this stuff when I’m too tired, but we all know that wouldn’t be true.
^ This is a pendantic person doing their thing.
EDIT: fix erroneous spelling. I’d say it’ll teach me to do this stuff when I’m too tired, but we all know that wouldn’t be true.
Pretty much covers the entirety of the “thought” processes behind the current administration.
No, I’ve had similar experiences. If your experiences/perspectives are considerably outside the norm, many “shrinks” - who likely are among “the norm” - just don’t get it. Never mind there’s always some who are just there for the money - my mother was quite happy with hers because he told her what she wanted to hear, which ultimately caused more harm than good.
EDIT: Political/religious leanings also often play into how things go.
The denial of the patient’s assumption indicated by the word “no” should have steered you towards the proper/intended interpretation.
Typically, no. This term, however…
I honestly haven’t wanted to know the details of the whole sordid affair enough to answer that question, although I can’t see how that would matter even if what they did was technically legal wherever it was.
No, most of his voters never cared about his character, but a small percentage were more moderate Republicans for whom such things actually do matter (they’re true believers in “the conservative way”) - possibly just enough to have swayed things.