Didn’t know that about the keymap prompt, I can think of several things it would be useful for!

I have a small camera (a little smaller than a phone) that can do photos and videos.

The phone will be powered off before leaving the house and only turned on if absolutely needed to make a call. Hopefully that’s enough for no GPS/cell tower tracking, right? Don’t need to wrap it in foil?

‘They’re Draining Resources’

“Building new power plants and taking all the water just to service broligarchs’ AI businesses is fine, though.”

“Damn that’s wild because I voted for you to have zero tariffs and a $50K tax break as a small business owner under Kamala,” reads the top comment under the video.

One of the best comments because it’s true and he can’t dismiss it as people being mean or reveling in his pain, just stating reality.

She hasn’t seen a dime from him and never will in the remainder of her lifetime. If she was much younger and trump hadn’t won again she might have had a chance, but her victory is basically symbolic only. I’m sure you know that the rich can just keep appealing what amounts to forever since the legal system crawls at the speed of a sloth. Legal, and especially financial consequences do not apply to oligarchs.

Elon will just pay the settlement for them with $DOGE or $TRUMP.

Or he just won’t. What’s anyone going to do about it?

Nice, but IMO we shouldn’t let the magats/propagandists control the narrative. I think we should put specific things we’re protesting or specific demands we have on the signs, not use them to try to refute talking points of people who are going to believe what they want to believe no matter what we say. It only spreads their disinfo further, especially if the sign gets photographed and spread and people say, “oh, people are saying they’re being paid?”

Just to clarify, since I don’t know if my experience is what you all are describing: this sounds kind of like what I hear if I start a yawn. Is the rumbling sound just for a second or can you make it indefinitely? And can you also make a short click or series of clicks?

I can get those sounds if I tense up some muscle(s) that you would also use to start a deliberate yawn. The clicks are easy to make, with less tension, and the rumble happens with more tension and it’s only for about a second or so. Also I definitely hear the rumble during a yawn. Does that sound like what you mean or am I describing something completely different?

That’s my point and why I say they didn’t do the cartoon right. If they wanted to say what you explained, we’d have to see the first person answering “no”. As it is, the cartoon implies that anyone who says violence isn’t the answer is lying/hypocritical.

I understand what the cartoonist is trying to imply–that there are no true pacifists and people who say they’re against violence are hypocrites who actually like violence when it’s used to protect their privileged position. They just didn’t do it right.

First, true pacifists do exist, who would answer “yes” to the first two questions–and which would make the last question ridiculous. So if the cartoonist’s goal was to criticize the hypocrites, they just needed to show the first person answering the first two questions with an unqualified “no” to show they didn’t really mean what they said in the first panel.

First panel: I agree with the aspiration to avoid violence but allow for circumstances like self-defense or defense of a vulnerable party.

Second panel: I do agree we shouldn’t give them weapons, at the least not lethal weapons, certainly not military-grade weapons.

Third panel: If you want to be capable of preserving your national sovereignty, having a military is required, therefore justified in that context.

Fourth panel: While the two previous questions logically follow from the position stated in the first panel, the last question makes no sense and is a complete non-sequitur from the stated position. [i.e. “Violence is never a solution” --> “oh, so do you mean it’s a solution in this one case? !? !” <–non-sequitur]

I’m watching Freetube right now, still working. v0.23.3

Oh, definitely.

Two hours before he paused them he tweeted (or whatever you call it) “NOW is a good time to buy”

The 25th can be used for any reason, not just mental decay. We already know the magats are fine with the mental decay.

That’s why they can’t go with the obvious route of saying he has dementia issues–the cult wouldn’t hear of that. But he can conveniently have a debilitating event or illness. Sure, the cult will have conspiracy theories, which is why they have to be sure to make it look plausible. But even if they have to resort to him having an “unfortunate accident”, there’s nothing the cult can really do about it, he’ll be gone. He’s just too unpredictable and uncontrollable for them to let him keep going rogue so much. Destroying the global economy and causing a worldwide depression is not part of their plans.

Gotta also consider the odds that he’s not there for much longer anyway. The Project 2025/Heritage Foundation people got JD Vance in as VP as they wanted–he’s one of them.

So I’ve been predicting since he won that the 25th Amendment will be used (if something else doesn’t happen to him), probably not until after the midterms so Vance can still run for 2 more terms. They need to set up the right conditions before ousting him, which will be making him look physically incapable of continuing, like saying he’s had a stroke or something. Congress/Senate has to believe it so they’ll go along with it.

We’ve already had a shooter with a near miss. … Probably a conservative who feels betrayed or person who is truly far left, (not just a progressive).

That person had been searching for info on the schedules of both Biden and trump. That along with some of the other info we learned about him makes me think it wasn’t so much a partisan political motivation as the desire to become famous and/or take someone famous down on his way off the planet.

When thinking of calling the police on someone, you have to first ask yourself, "is this a situation where the significant chance of death to the person versus the amount of danger they pose to others is really a risk worth taking? Because there are definitely cases where the answer is clearly Yes. We don’t want to let a victim get killed or raped or beaten by ignoring a threat, but we also don’t want to get someone killed when what they’re doing requires restraint, but not the death penalty.

But oftentimes the best course isn’t clear. In a healthy society, we could call properly trained authorities worthy of being trusted to handle those situations, who would be trained on things like how to de-escalate, how to use only the amount of force actually necessary while ensuring people’s safety, and who have been psychologically evaluated to weed out those with personality traits that would make them unsuitable for such a role.

But our police forces are not that–they are basically the exact opposite of that.

They probably read the person who lied/was mistaken in another post and automatically believed them. They’re both getting lots of upvotes for saying it was a 12-yo child who called (it was actually a 19-yo). Some people are more into getting upvotes than being accurate.