Nice try at spinning away from what he said, repeatedly.

Trump is clear and consistent…when he loses he will direct his cult to riot and attack liberals and the government, again….he’s already told them to be ready.
When he said if he loses there will be massive bloodshed across America, he means exactly that. Nobody is fooled by the idiotic excuses and lies, @bobknight33. It’s far from the first time he’s said that.

That’s why there’s an industry selling “ready packages” for assaults to MAGA like the Rittenhouse Pack that includes (but isn’t limited to) full ballistic body armor, additional ceramic body armor plates, multi magazine holsters for multiple extended mags in multiple calibers, trauma pads and other first aid, and hydration because it’s thirsty work taking over a nation by force. These aren’t defensive items, they are assault items being sold exclusively to MAGA.
It’s why people like Bannon are telling their crowds to be prepared to go to prison to get Trump in office and dismantle the “administrative state” (by which he means the Federal government). These are crowds of MAGA politicians and appointees. You don’t go to prison for being peaceful lawful citizens.

WE ALL SEE THE PLANS HERE. You should know, vests don’t stop black talons or other Teflon coated bullets, and we know it.

He said the foreign car industry will fail if he wins, can’t sell those cars but that’s the least of your problems because it will be a bloodbath FOR THE COUNTRY if he loses and that (lower car sales) will be the least of it. That is the context, he’s calling for/predicting a bloodbath across America BY HIS FOLLOWERS if (when) he loses the election, not predicting a bloodbath in the auto industry (like the one that happened his first term).
I know that’s clear to even you, you just can’t admit it or you think you’ll give the game away…but nobody is fooled. Plausible deniability requires plausibility.

Howsomeever, frenetic mastication can result in hyperhydrolized ballistically moduliized spittleture expulsion.

Your video, Elephant Rifle Annihilates Ballistic Gel at 82,000FPS, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 326 Badge!

You forgot the (alleged) assasination attempt on President Maduro in Venezuela. They only had two drones.

A swarm of 5200 could take out any non hardened above ground target, including the White House, and no ballistic system in use today could stop them all. Indeed, if they are programmed to come from every direction to one point, flying low, they would almost certainly go undetected until it was too late and could deliver tons (literally) of high explosives.

Here are some things been thinking about...

-if R.P. has actual evidence of 'gain of function' why hasn't it been released? Wage he doesn't because there isn't.

-if Paul is convinced COVID was engineered, possibly by the Chinese, then why wouldn't he push for higher national vaccination rates? As it is, it'd be like telling folks to ignore the sirens as Chinese ballistic missiles are raining down.

-why didn't he let Fauci finish the sentence "...molecularly impossible..." statement? Wage it was the same reason Duran said, "No más".

Oh! really helpful answer---my next question: why does that guidance system and ballistics computer seem to have issues putting almost all the rounds on the target?

Or does that seem normal to you?

Ballistic ball-less-dick

This is a pretty good analog to how Hawaii reacted to their (false alarm) ballistic missile warning... although the cats missed the final step of scratching the eyes out of the people responsible for it...

Possible, but I don't really think so. I think that the Medical minds of the time thought that physical shock, pressure waves from bombing etc. as you described, were a (or perhaps THE) primary cause of the psychological problems of returning soldiers. So the name "shell shock" came from there, but the symptoms that it was describing were psychological and, I think precisely equal to modern PTSD. Basically, "shell shock" became a polite euphemism for "soldier that got mentally messed up in the war and is having difficulty returning to civilian life".

My grandfather was an Army Air Corps armorer during WWII. He went through basic training, but his primary job was loading ammunition, bombs, external gas tanks, etc. onto P-47 airplanes. He was never in a direct combat situation, as I would describe it. He was never shot at, never in the shockwave radius of explosions, etc. But after the war he was described as having mild "shell shock", manifested by being withdrawn, not wanting to talk about the war, and occasionally prone to angry outbursts over seemingly trivial things. Eventually, he started talking about the war in his mid 80's, and here's a few relevant (perhaps) stories of his:

He joined the European theater a couple days after D-Day. Came to shore on a Normandy beach in the same sort of landing craft seen in Saving Private Ryan, etc. Even though it was days later, there were still LOTS of bodies on the beach, and thick smell of death. Welcome to the war!

His fighter group took over a French farm house adjacent to a dirt landing strip / runway. They put up a barbed wire perimeter with a gate on the road. In one of the only times I heard of him having a firearm and being expected to potentially use it, he pulled guard duty at that gate one evening. His commanding officer gave him orders to shoot anyone that couldn't provide identification on sight. While he was standing guard, a woman in her 20's rolled up on a bicycle, somewhat distraught. She spoke no English, only French. She clearly wanted to get in, and even tried to push past my grandfather. By the letter of his orders, he was "supposed" to shoot her. Instead, he knocked her off her bike when she tried to ride past after getting nowhere verbally and physically restrained her. At gunpoint! When someone that spoke French got there, it turned out that she was the daughter of the family that lived in the farm house. They had no food, and she was coming back to get some potatoes they had left in the larder.

Riding trains was a common way to get air corps support staff up to near the front, and also to get everybody back to transport ships at the end of the war. On one of those journeys later in the war, my grandfather was riding in an open train car with a bunch of his buddies. They were all given meals at the start of the trip. A short while later, the track went through a French town. A bunch of civilians were waiting around the tracks begging for food. I'll never forgot my grandfather describing that scene. It was tough for him to get out, and then all he managed was "they was starvin'!" He later explained that he and his buddies all gave up the food that they had to those people in the first town -- only to have none left to give as they rolled past similar scenes in each town on down the line.

When my mother was growing up, she and her brothers learned that they'd better not leave any food on their plates to go to waste. She has said that the angriest she ever saw her dad was when her brothers got into a food fight one time, and my grandfather went ballistic. They couldn't really figure out what the big deal was, until years later when my grandfather started telling his war stories and suddenly things made more sense.


A lot of guys had a much rougher war than my grandfather. Way more direct combat. Saw stuff much worse -- and had to DO things that were hard to live with. I think the psychological fallout of stuff like that explains the vast majority of "shell shock", without the addition of CTE-like physical head trauma. I'd wager that when the docs said Stewart's father's shell shock was a reaction to aerial bombardment, that was really just a face-saving measure to try to explain away the perceived "weakness" of his condition.

*fail

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/kznxde/hawaii-ballistic-missile-warning-no-testing-system

Notify me when his Primitive Technology: Intercontinental Ballistic Nuclear Missile Inteception System video posts up.

Interesting, but geography doesn't protect from ballistic and or guided missiles, the most likely weapons of choice.

In the event of a nuclear attack, is being a vault dweller really what you want? It's something to consider....I don't want to be a Morlok.

I would feel far safer in Iceland. Who's going to nuke anything anywhere near Iceland? Europe, on the other hand, has plenty of targets...and would probably have plenty of desperate dying people to deal with. They're as scary to me as the bombs if not more.

Yes, that's where we differ, because she sure didn't seem to be trying to leave to me, just had an inability to stand still under stress, like many 15 year olds. (And as I've said, it's the macing a handcuffed, secured girl that's out of line imo, the manhandling was just more than needed and was certain to escalate problems rather than solve them, so not smart but on the low end of the scale of acceptability, the macing was a pure assault in my eyes, for no good reason beyond sadism. It was not the right way to get her in the car.)

Keep in mind, she gets on her bike and rides (slowly) with ZERO complaint from the officer she's right in front of, he LET her do it, then got pissed off that she did it. WTF?!
Again, this could have been solved with a simple command to sit down, a command they did not give. Also, detained is not under arrest. You are under zero obligation to submit to detention. If they thought she was leaving the scene, they should have arrested her. Instead, they said repeatedly that they were detaining her for 'cooperation of investigation' (not a crime) and a medical release (something they probably need for their own liability purposes, but not something they can arrest a person for as far as I know).

Yes, the little girl was in the wrong...did my saying exactly that confuse you?

Yes, I absolutely think that if an officer pepper sprayed another officer's child for something the first officer screwed up (like failing to put her all the way in the car) the parent would go ballistic and sue...no matter how their child had acted. Rude behavior is not a threat, the only legitimate reason to use force. I don't think they would see it like you do if it was their child.
Yes, they would also probably reprimand the child too, but bad manners do not excuse assault with a weapon on a handcuffed detainee.

There was no reason to use mace, the proper response is to pull her into the car from the other side.

Your analogy only works if the wolf hounds go after the sheep when there's not a wolf in sight.

Hours? Really? Try an extra 10 seconds to avoid 15 minutes of battle and days of court. "Sit down" doesn't take even that. If they don't have the patience to verbalize the instructions they want followed, they should quit. Deescalation is their job, and they absolutely failed, as they often do.

Remember, they repeatedly say they're only detaining her because she may need medical treatment, then they treat her in a way that ensures she needs medical treatment. If they were really trying to help her, they failed so utterly miserably that they all should quit today...but we know that was bullshit lies, right?

I'm guessing you've never had a gun to your head and a knee on your neck face down in a gutter because an officer made a mistake reading your licence plate and had zero patience for the car thief he was taking down, followed by threats of retaliation if you report them. You might give them less cooperation and leeway if you had.

I do agree that unilateral disarmament is a difficult thing to achieve, but there are other arguments as to why it should be pursued. I am sure we agree on a lot of things on this subject, but let me at least put the other side out there:

1. America as the over achieving nation in the world has a duty to lead by example. How can the country with the largest nuclear arsenal expect other countries to start the process that we all signed up to? Hey France, why didn't you get rid of your 87 nukes? Well America, why haven't you touched that pile of 500? (making up numbers here to illustrate the point)

2. The US isn't worried about Best Korea nuking them because they would need a staging platform and a functional ballistic missile. They can be launched from subs, but NK isn't really your worry there. The most developed nations are the concern, and if you could get an agreement it could happen, with peacekeepers and mutually open inspections, and pressure on smaller countries to abide or be trade embargoed to stop them (which the west does/has done already). Unlikely as things are right now, i agree.

3. We have ageing equipment housing extremely dangerous explosives. They require a huge amount of maintenance and whatnot, costing billions. The UK has to replace their system soon to the tune of hundreds of billions of pounds. Imagine what kind of alternative modern anti-nuclear defence system we could develop using all that money and all our technology? That way we could be safe from nukes without using nukes and it would cost less in the long run.

Also if you claim your weapons as part of a defence, it's a bit of a giveaway that you're bullshitting if you then go off around the world antagonising other countries, knowing that they can't really fight back. So i think in fairness we should crack open that self-defence argument and see what percentage of it is referring to "a good offence".

Having said all that, binning all the US nukes overnight wouldn't be a great idea. The UK would be less of a target and safer without nukes imo, but the US would probably make the world a lot safer just by having less.

Let's be honest here, the amount of nukes we have is preposterous. No one could possibly have any reason to use that many, the potential for absolute worldwide devastation is far too high to need that many - you could potentially finish the world off in a nuclear winter, according to the average figures given, in about 100 'small' nukes. Not 100 each per country, but 100 total worldwide.

And remember, that doesn't mean you can use 90 and be safe. The figure 100 was enough to likely cause a global famine by causing temperature drops leading to crop failures. That doesn't account for extinction of animals and the devastation of the natural balance (which would lead to our eventual extinction) which can be wildly unpredictable. You could shoot 40 at a country, win the conflict, and cause the starvation of millions+ in your own (and other) countries for the next 20 odd years..... or worse.