ThreePointTakedown

My post: Ok. Why is it personal? War notwithstanding, what did Jimmy Carter do that, if you feel he is such a revolting person, you feel this way? Also, do you feel this way about what other presidents did to further their own agenda on the backs of creating conflict and stoking up mistrust? I can give you examples if you would like. Response: I did read what you wrote and composed my response. Did you read what I wrote? If you did, you would see that I did not imply your feelings about him. I asked the question so you could clarify yourself. Which you did. Thank you. I doubt that 'zero' thought was put into it. I'll be dollars to donuts that a lot of thought was put into it but was executed poorly because other countries more then made up for it by selling even more to Russia. PBS Iowa tells a bit of different story. Coupled with high gas prices and lending policy, hurt everyone. Leaving farmers who over leveraged to take the biggest hit. Also, this is your daily reminder that Reagan was a POS and would do or say anything to be and stay president. Remind you of someone?

With regards to what in particular? Any stories or criticisms that were unfounded or wrong? Being critical is not the same as being bias. Can you offer some instances?

Its going to put a lot of pressure on everyone except Cornell. Maybe it pushes to motivate yale and dart to join the club again. Doubtful tho. Princeton: new HC might have growing pains, could feel pressure to equal success of recent past Brown: New-ish HC, last one was let go, possibly for not having enough success Harvard: He's not going anywhere any time soon, no pressure on him Columbia: Young HC, building is program, might get some pressure to see the fruits of the last few years Penn: Not much success to speak of but they seem unconcerned, will shine a big spot light on their underperformance Cornell: they will look to dominate this smaller pond How does this effect remaining EIWA teams? Lehigh better step up. Without Cornell they will be the next biggest fish. If they stumble right out of the gate it might be time for Santoro to hand over the reigns or Dillon might move on. Might be a bottle neck at the top. I think there could be some tight team races. Fewer qualifying spots could make for some contentious matches in the later rounds. Upside: maybe someone other than Bucknell, Binghamton, Lehigh, or Hofstra could host the tourney.

Yes and fair question. But they need to answer for and be held accountable to the opinions they allow on their air. That they are and have been comfortable allowing such rhetoric is a testament to their motivations. Apparently people that watch are less concerned with the motivation of the company and more concerned with how it makes them feel. They enjoy the toxic product that fox provides. Is that a good thing?

They all fall under that category to some degree. Some more than others. CNN and MSNBC in my experience have motivation to be correct more so then the ones I did list. They make mistakes and work to correct them. By and large they are news gathering organizations that trade on their credibility. They question all parties. Try to hold all them accountable. FOX does not. Their motivation is to promote or to take down anyone that will help them make money. They all but say that in court filings that you can search for and read. Does leaving some names off a list effect the point?

Does it seem like someone is overcompensating for something? Making a confession with every allegation? Keeping in mind the judgement handed down by SCOTUS in the case of Rubber vs Glue or the epic divorce trial of Neener vs Neener!

Simple case of the little brother was tired of losing at a game(he chose to play and agreed to the rules ahead of time) so cried until big brother changed the rules or gave them an advantage so they could win. Except this was a presidential election and calling into question the methods used to conduct the election without evidence(and they had little to no actual evidence, I'm sorry if you can't bring yourself to admit that considering the list I posted, might want to ask yourself why that is?) is dangerous and contrary to a president's responsibility to uphold the rule of law and to protect democracy. Seems as if he has no respect for either of those two things, that should tell you something about his character. He is a charlatan and a crybaby. These 60 lawsuits prove that point at the very least. If you still support someone so keen on knee capping democracy, there's nothing I can do to stop you. Except to point out where your reasoning fails every time you post something in support of that buffoon. feliz ano nuevo

Election Challenge Breakdowns (spoiler, the cases had no merit) Rep. Liz Cheney, the former chair of the House Republican Conference, stated on February 23: "The president and many around him pushed this idea that the election had been stolen. And that is a dangerous claim. It wasn't true," she said. "There were over 60 court cases where judges, including judges appointed by President Trump and other Republican presidents, looked at the evidence in many cases and said there is not widespread fraud." Each and every case is explained and why they fell short of proving anything happened, that the cases, themselves had little to no merit, and why it would be a waste of time moving forward. Its a good read.

I listen to legal analysis podcasts made by people who don't need the job to live. Who aren't tied to whether or not I 'like' their content. They give a breakdown of some news of the day and how it may effect the law and the like. Give their opinions on legal theory and if a prosecutor or defense would or should be effective in a case and why. Since they have practiced they can say if it has worked for them in the past and site cases that you can research yourself. Its all going to be spun somehow. But if you're going to give up and not be critical of the information you take in, that's fine. But if you spout off an opinion that you're regurgitating from JR and we all know that he doesn't care if its true or not, I'm going to ask you if you know its true and why? Three things you can do at that point: have a conversation and explain, yell louder in the hopes I just leave you alone(not likely), or stop. Facts thrown at you can be overwhelming and/or just boring. So I understand if we need some color to put it in perspective. If you can't find the interest in the info with regards to your life and you need drama to make it interesting, watch the Kardashians. And there's a lot of info out there so its important to have a system in place to figure out if the info is legit. I question people that get their news from obvious opinion sources with little to no safeguards in place to determine truth. ie fox 'news' JR, Alex Jones, and the like. They are hucksters selling you snake oil or fear to pad their bottom line. News should be a little boring. Be careful with people putting on a show, there's a reason. And by 'you' I am not inferring that you(OE), yourself, do this, just the royal you of anyone who might want to do such a thing. Trolls are going to troll and that's fine but pointing them out so that others can join in and ignore them is, IMO, a good way to change the behavior and improve the discourse in the community.

What?! This started off great. If true it will be the straw that breaks the... blah blah blah... Then you pivot using 'propaganda' as if Michigan has an agenda to run a thoroughly fair election in spite of the president. And that the cases were thrown out without merit. *To clarify, do you think the act of throwing them out had no merit or that the cases were brought without merit and therefore thrown out? Because these are drastically different and your statement doesn't make it clear which you think happened. And remember, there were no legitimate reports of rigging. No evidence of widespread rigging. No evidence brought up since, that shows any sign there was rigging of any kind. A candidate and his team(including one senator, NOT from that state) lobbied election people in several states to claim that it was rigged so they could step in to take action. THIS WAS THE SAME THING THEY DID GET US INTO THE WAR IN IRAQ! It is my contention that 45 never wanted to be president. If lost which we all thought he was going to, he could transition into a new industry because his tv career was over and apparently his real estate business wasn't doing things on the level, his university and charity organizations were shut down and fines levied. Maybe his pride or competitive nature kicked in and he couldn't go down without a fight or at least looking like he was fighting. Sprinkle in a little help from the FBI director weeks from the election, that yielded little to nothing. These are not the kinds of things that even a dim witted person would want to put under a presidential microscope. 77,000 people said HMB and a disaster of a term did we have. But now there is a real chance he goes to jail for all the things he didn't want everyone to see in the first place. And for the things he did to cover up the first set of things. So to put that off another four years a trapped rat will do and say anything to get out of being held responsible. This all coming from the party that screams about their moral authority.

That JR is a clown and I feel bad for people that take him seriously. I understand that deep down they just want to feel like the belong in the opinions that they have. That is what makes him and his ilk so dangerous. Yes, they'll get rich by selling the masses, carrying pitchforks, the direction of the monster's house. Each cult leader has the same set of tricks to keep the crowd from leaving to another cult: Tell them what they want to hear, tell them that the outside world doesn't understand them and won't accept them That anyone that questions the truth of the group should be ignored or worse That if they(the leader) were, in fact, wrong about anything, it wasn't their fault or anyone of a dozen gaslighting schemes to keep members from putting their confidence in anyone else but the leader Everything is in service to furthering the cause and further insolating supporters from the truth of the outside world Read a book. Almost every cult and cult leader follows the same playbook. Why do you think it works so well? People want to believe the effort they have put in to their beliefs and the group they trust was worth it and are very resistant to uprooting themselves to try again. That he uses his platform in this way is irresponsible. Anyone that reaches the level that he has should understand that and take it seriously. But that would require some introspection and someone to be able to tell him 'No'. I very much doubt he has or trusts anyone in his life that has that power. He is Alex Jones! Someone who shovels bs down the throats and brains of his listeners/viewers with little to know effort in determining the truthiness of his claims. Does a blind squirrel find a nut? Sometimes. He should not be satisfied with his % of success with the resources that he has. But he's factored it in to is ROI. Less effort costs less. Which equals more profit. If he tried to find the truth he would lose downloads and money. Which tells me he is ignorant or malevolent. Either way, not worth the time, IMO. I don't mean to insinuate that you fall into any of these categories btw. You just asked a question and I'm answering it. A bit long winded but I feel necessary.

Ok. Why is it personal? War notwithstanding, what did Jimmy Carter do that, if you feel he is such a revolting person, you feel this way? Also, do you feel this way about what other presidents did to further their own agenda on the backs of creating conflict and stoking up mistrust? I can give you examples if you would like.

Seems like you're purposefully mocking Joe and the people who look to him for their facts and news of the day? I can get on board with that.

You keep using that word. i do not think it means what you think it means. That you instinctively react by lashing out should give you pause as to who is brainwashed/conditioned. We have more info and better access to it then ever before. Are those that yell the loudest the least qualified to talk about knowledge and science? Often. Does it take an effort to keep up with all that knowledge? Yes. Are we inherently lazy and look for an easier way to get along in life? Also, yes. Do we push back against changing our minds due to how much energy it costs to reevaluate or reconsider our understanding of the world? Heck ya. Does trolling help anyone? Depends on how you define help. Does JBT seem to enjoy getting under the skin of people? Seems so. BAH!

These don't sound like the retorts of someone triggered by their own inadequacies and self doubt. You can take you're ball and go home. I'll go ahead and give you the last word on the subject.

Some more than others, clearly.

The USSR invaded Afghanistan and we were suppose to keep up business as usual? Do you see any parallels to Russia of today? Granted, the circumstances were not great. We could've aided our farmers more/better to ensure they didn't bare the brunt of foreign policy decisions. That can be said for a bunch of situations in many administrations. Can you use this line of reasoning to blame a single person, say a president, for anything else? Iran-Contra, made up war in Iraq that killed untold thousands(maybe millions) of civilians, response to COVID? If your reasoning doesn't cut both ways then you're being dishonest. Be consistent.

The guy that builds houses for habitat for humanity vs the bigot/homophobe that followed him in office? Did you read that right? Are you confused somehow? Let me know, I can help.

Thank you for being blatantly dishonest. You're an example for the kids in this holiday season. After, therefore because of it. His creating the thing did not lead to the other thing. That was my point. If you were confused, which by your response, it seems like you were. Then you could've asked me to clarify. But to your whole point, republicans and Reagan in particular lead to the brainwashing of the country. The article I posted will lend credence to that. His quotes on the subject (ie. 'intellectual curiosity', is a particular gem, don't read it, you're head might explode from the cognitive dissonance) are particularly prescient to his actions and the effects to follow.

He was a POS. Would love for an explanation of why he is so revered?

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. False. Try again. Who followed him and what was his roll in how education is thought about in this country? This paints a picture of a contemptuous bigot that wanted power and to punish his perceived enemies for his own gain. Doesn't really seem like the model of a modern major general. But a prelude of another wannabe despot that we just booted out of office and hopefully will spend the rest of his short life in jail. Don't meet or read about your heroes.

Not sure if I see your point in these scenarios. Which is fair and which is unequal? Easy question...I have had as much opportunity(equal and fair, I guess) as my best friend from high school...yet he makes significantly more money than me(this is unequal, but not unfair, where did your paths split, why is there a difference?). Another example...professional athletes...I could never be professional basketball player(I have a hard time seeing anything unfair in this situation, if they make it to the pros, which is far from a lock, most don't make nearly as much as is portrayed in media and they don't then many don't have skills outside of sports to fall back on, having a hard time seeing your point, pros have plenty of inadequacies that 'regular' folk take for granted) due to my physical make up.(unequal, but not unfair, again, you probably have things that a pro athlete doesn't or couldn't have)

In what ways? Any details you'd like to share?

The program is a poorly run, mandated social net for retirement and handicap insurance. Agreed, things can be run better. But it seems as if one party has the philosophy of knee capping a program in order to campaign on its inefficiency and ineffectiveness rather then to see if, while fully funded and staffed, it can have the intended outcomes/benefits. I imagine this will be a theme in any government convo. Current workers pay Social Security taxes, and these taxes fund the benefits received by current retirees. This intergenerational transfer system is based on the idea that each generation pays for the benefits of the generation that preceded it. The expectation is that future generations of workers will, in turn, contribute to the system to support those who come after them. The problem is that the younger generation cannot pay for the previous generation. The benefits will reduce, there is influence to defer benefit collection until older, and there won't be funds when it's our turn. Fair point. Currently soc sec tax is taken from up to $160k. Let take off the limit? If fewer people are paying for more retired people. Lets up the amount that is paid by people who can afford it. They’ll get their share when they retire. If they don’t need it at that point, who cares? The government is not making good use of its funds. It is a wicked and lazy servant, burying the money in the ground... That’s a tough thing to agree or disagree to. As, I imagine, we would have differing definitions of good and bad spending and why? Do you have any particular instances or programs? The effective interest return in 2022 was 2.4%. It has averaged 5.1% returns and breached 10% six times since 1940. The S&P 500 has averaged 11% returns and breached 10% forty-five times since 1940. I am very much an amateur when it comes to the stock market. Index funds all the way for me. *don’t take investing advice from a non-wrestling wrestling thread* I have already paid $240K into social security and will keep paying for a couple of decades. Without further contribution from me, this should grow 5.1% annually for 25 years to $830K... barely beating inflation. With the S&P, it should grow 11% annually for 25 years to $3.26M. My kids will not see this money. If I die, my spouse may not get any money. Investing is tricky, no doubt. Rules on benefits are confusing and often without nuance. Agreed. I'll pay another $500K until retirement, and then I'm looking at $450K returned in social security checks over perhaps 10 years. Hopefully as a supplement to any retirement funds you have saved up. If so, congrats you’re ahead of the game. Many people aren’t and those small checks will help to keep them from eating cat food. When my dad was killed in his 40s, after 20 years of government work (Air Traffic Control), my mother remarried within 2 years, and before she was 60 years old. My mother lost spousal benefits, and at 20 years old, I was not eligible either. $260K+ paid in for naught in return. That’s a tough situation. My sympathy to you and your family. I hope those policies have changed since then so others are saved from having to endure that. I'd pay the government to encourage and enable individual empowerment and fiscal responsibility. Mandate personal 401Ks, etc. if it wants to protect Mary AND me. But the harder I work, the more money the government gives Mary. The government is victimizing me and making Mary government-dependent. Agreed. But its tricky when the world, if It had a motivation, would be to knock off all of the sharp edges of ourselves that make us unique and push us towards conformity with the group. Too many people depend on the government for retirement funds that are too few and will not be there when they retire. I can see the day when the disciplined folks have a larger share of the personal retirement funds taken and redistributed. Also agree. The programs were put into place during an age before people would/could save for retirement. Also the life expectancy was between 59 and 63. If you retired at all, it wouldn’t be for long. So with advances in medicine and health we inadvertently messed up this program that was meant to help. I’d like to see the numbers of people that are able to(can afford) to put away for retirement over the years. To give working people a little comfort or dignity in their later years, I think it’s a worth program. How about a compromise to a hybrid, where each contributor has an incentive? Given Social Security is a 12% tax mandate... a $45K annual salary over 45 years at 5.1% return is ~$900K. At 11% it is $5.9M. Can I have some of that? I'd like to think there is some compromise between redistributing and keeping a percentage. I've averaged 55-hour work weeks for most of my career. What's my reward? A larger share of no control. I’m sure there are things that could change that would benefit more and more people. But with so many individuals there’s bound to be people with unique circumstances that will fall outside of any foreseeable scenarios. There is some generalization in this... but what a poor solution for a legit problem (future savings). There are some benefits to some people. Will all people be happy all the time? No.

Well phrased