If you realize that, in their minds, "democracy" = "rule by Democrats," it makes perfect sense. Trump is indeed the greatest threat to "democracy." He literally wants to destroy it, and they know it. (I like to warm myself by the fire with that little equation. It explains so much.)
The procedure for selecting the president is established by the Constitution. In order to change it, there must be a Constitutional amendment---which didn't happen. This is a case of a legislative attempt to supersede the Constitution. I don't think it has proper standing. If Pence had the power under the Constitution, he still would have the power under the Constitution.
I am somewhat skeptical of "reaching the precipice." Ever been to the lip of a precipice? I once was at a viewing location for the "Black Canyon" of the Gunnison River in Colorado. You walk up to this low stone barrier (not even 3 feet high), lean over, and peer down. Straight for 1800 feet. When the creepiness fades from your scalp, you carefully take several steps back.
My point is that when we "reach the precipice" we were already subject to having fallen over. To survive, you have to realize your predicament BEFORE you actually "reach the precipice." They don't call it "brinksmanship" for nothing.
Real Integrity Not Obvious
I don't buy such errors. This is de facto advertising copy, and you simply don't release such stuff without a proofing. In my book, the intent is to stir up the "conspiracy theorist" community, while also laughing at them in their face. For one thing, it distracts from the fact that we have no idea who in Hell actually wrote that copy. It sure wasn't Michael Hastings, unless his ouija board is hooked up to a computer.
Nah. Biden is just throwing a bone to the conspiracy hyenas to get them all excited and barking. Maybe there was an airplane flying around, with a rifle loaded with incendiary tracers, with a targeting rule of "don't shoot at blue roofs." Biden is a notorious blabbermouth and vacant skull.
Here's the problem. Suppose that a target surface was 90% reflective at whatever wavelength you care. 10% would still get through and heat up the material. If you are working only at the level of tens of watts, then, yes, the "reflective" panel will survive because the leakage is within its thermal tolerance. Get high enough for weapon effects and the leakage is high enough to degrade the reflectivity and the whole process destroys the target. We studied targets that were mirror-polished metal. At open-fire intensities of a hundred watts/cm2, the leakage was enough to destroy the reflectivity. We dreamed up the possibility of a "cleanly-degrading polymer" coating, and it worked out the same way. The CDP would just evaporate and expose the bare metal again. This was 50 years ago.
But if visible light lasers had been at work, people would have seen the light flashes. No such reports.
And, having been in the business of designing space-based DEWs, I can say with a high degree of confidence that there are none.
Biden was just free-associating a popular news item with the ruins. "Mr. President, be sure to mention the 'right roof color.' It will excite the crazy types and ruin their credibility."
The color of the roof would not matter at all. Color reflectance only works partially and would not be a barrier to a powerful beam. But in any case, available laser weapon technology is all based on infrared wavelengths, and to IR a blue roof would look black.
Also, laser weapons are clear-weather weapons. They will not penetrate clouds and smoke---and targets cannot be seen through clouds or smoke. The statistics for cloud-free line-of-sight from space to ground are generally poor. (I had occasion to research the subject for a system design.) Use as an incendiary weapon has long been understood, but equally well understood as a frivolous use of a valuable asset better applied to other targets. (Once you burn up your laser fuel or reactants, all you have left is expensive junk.)
Laser weapons from space do not project from all directions, as would be needed in order to melt automobile wheels on both sides of a car.
Who know what they are talking about, and point out that there is no evidence for DEWs. Target selectivity is just as easy for someone with a match. You have more evidence for witchcraft and spells.
I have read that houses with blue roofs burned and roofs and things that were non-blue survived. The blue roof meme is bogus. What may be relevant is that such roofs could have been associated with people who had nicer homes---meaning that they were also situated where the fire wasn't. Hard for something to burn if no fire approached it.
No. You cater to those who can't resist checking under their beds. No "kill switch."
You want me to take you seriously---or you don't want to "impress" me? You can't even make an argument to support your pipe dream. My "coherent statement" was nothing other than the face value of the words I used, and I am only surprised that what I said was initially beyond your grasp. Surprised no longer.
You don't even claim that what you are saying is worth taking seriously. But you make claims nevertheless, and claims are allegations about reality. You don't make any caveat that "this is just my hare-brained personal preference." What I was putting forth were counter-explanations (alternative and more credible theories), but you dodged them like they were bullets.
Now you refer to statistics. In your original comments you were comparing news accounts to "what we see around us." I'm not aware that anyone is keeping stats on "celebrities." Or that miscellaneous news accounts are "statistics." If there were statistics, you could cite them. You don't.
Bottom line: no evidence or basis to believe in "kill switches" for the vaxx, or even that Navalny was vaxxed. Pure imagination.
I'm not impressed with flights of fancy being palmed off as works of careful deduction. Paranoid delusions are not the stuff that will make us free, or enable us to help anyone puzzled by events. There is a lot of incredible bullshit that is tolerated on this page, and few here seem to appreciate how seriously it undermines our credibility to "outsiders." It has seriously undermined my credulity toward what goes on here. It has caused people to walk away and be public about their dismay and reservation. Such great PR. I come here to gain insight...not to share delusions.
You can still engage in an intelligent discussion. Simply provide evidence for your fantasy claims.
So that is not a problem. Visibility of celebrities to the public (how well the public is aware of them and their lives) is high because their behavior is followed by the news media and advertised frequently to the masses of people. Visibility of any ordinary member of the public to any other member of the public (how well you are aware of your neighbors' identify and lives) is low because as they become more remote (live farther away), your information on them is increasingly sporadic and incomplete.
But that is incidental to the fact that you have provided no evidence to support your original assertions. You work on that, and we might have an intelligent discussion. You try to make this all about my mastery of English, then you have flopped and changed the subject. Who will you impress? Not me. Not you. And the more we go at this, the less likely it will impress anyone else, because the thread is too deep.
Pal, I was specific as hell about my own experiences with clots. You were absent from lunch on any substantiation of your fancies about a Navalny "kill switch." And even now, you dodge any substantiation. Are you as boring to yourself as you must be to others? I guess not.
You know, it is really interesting how the lust for vengeance makes one willing for millions of victims to be swept up in the flames.
Frequencies are physical manifestations and can be measured. The Earth has a few natural frequencies. If you want to imagine others, that would be freedom of thought, but any serious pursuit of truth would MEASURE them and give the numbers, and explain why they are the ones of concern.
It's been a while, but I thought you were supposed to present identification, with name and address, and then your place on the list would be marked and dated to prevent a repeat vote.
One could ask, "Why bother to vote by mail, when the Powers that Be will take care of my vote anyway?"
More defensive quibbling over words. If you didn't understand what I meant about visibility, you never bothered to ask what I meant. And that would have made you look stupid, because then we would be struggling with the meaning of common words, like "visibility" (the ability to be seen). Feigning stupidity as a defense against producing a response is a low tactic, but I am not surprised.
We don't know anything about celebrities and Satanism. "Crumbs" in this context are only Rorschach blots into which we read meanings from our imagination. The fact is that there is no evidence for what you are saying about this, and the demands of logic and proof is that you have the burden of presenting a case that would convict---not just a collection of fancies and smears.
Why argue that something "fits the scenario" if there is no reason to think it is true? No, it is an attempt to impart credibility to a fancy. By the way, I don't believe that YOU know the difference among logical-plausible-possible-provable, or you would be enlightening me instead of using them as a club. Go to a dictionary. I'm good with those definitions. Prove me wrong.
We were talking about "kill switches" setting off a "vaccine"-based contamination in Navalny. Exactly analogous to black magic (i.e., entirely imaginary), yet you jump from "if it can be imagined" to "it must be real."
Your remark about electricity is tautological; light bulbs are designed to produce light from electricity. It is a definition of what a light bulb is. It's a question of logic only to the extent that it is a statement of truth; there is no syllogism involved with it. Some light sources produce incandescent light without electricity. Now we use quantum physics to produce light from electricity. I wouldn't expect you to know the details. I'm not the one saying "kill switches" exist or do anything; you are. And they are logically interchangeable with black magic, since there is nothing real to differentiate them. Your phrase about black magic and light bulbs is only from you, not from me. It is not semantically analogous. Why would you make that statement? Easy---to produce a straw man of your own making and put it in my mouth. Well, if the readers of this exchange think that makes sense, I can't help them.
Net result: Navalny died of a clot, which kills many people, often suddenly. Of which I have considerable personal experience. Paranoid fantasies are not required to accept his cause of death.
And there is nothing mysterious about dying from a blood clot. Sadly, it happens all the time (thrombosis).
Immediately following my heart surgery in 2013 (atrial valve repair), 2 clots were discovered in my leg and one in my lung. It turned out that I was subject to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), where the heparin used as a blood anti-coagulant during the procedure actually acted the opposite. It is akin to an allergy and I had to go on a different blood thinner (warfarin) for quite a while afterward. My red blood cells had been depleted due to the clot formations and I was anemic. I had to remain in hospital for 19 days while my red blood cell count was restored. Interesting to watch the progression from late summer to fall outside my window during this time. Lots of fun trying to make it to the restroom by myself...like climbing the Matterhorn with a spike through my chest.
Years later, I then had a follow-up surgical procedure on my heart further delayed for years because a clot had been discovered in the "atrial appendage" of my heart, and we had to wait for blood thinners to dissolve it away. Dislodging the clot could have killed me instantly.
This idea that Navalny was murdered by some mysterious method is just nutty thinking. (Plus, it seems Navalny was not a candidate for Best Citizen of the Year. He is reputed to have been a Nazi sympathizer, and that he had taken money from the U.S.---caught red-handed---to foment a Maidan revolution in Russia.)
-
You surmise that "The number of suddenly died amongst celebrities is much higher than what we have seen around us." No evidence or argument given to support the surmise. No refutation of the counter-observation that the relative visibility of celebrities to the public is higher than of the public to the public (fallen tree in forest effect).
-
You claim "we all know a lot of these celebrities Satanically sold their soul to get there (etc.)." No we don't. Nor do you. This is fantasy.
-
You say "Theory of a remote kill switch, while pretty outrageous, does fit this scenario." Anyone could say the same thing of black magic, but dreaming up a magical cause does not establish the reality of that cause. This is an example of delusional thinking, where speculation is considered to be truth.
Yes, illogical, taking your words at face value. You are the one making claims about relative mortalities and other imponderables, so the onus is on you to provide evidence for your claims. That is the logical burden of proof you are obligated to assume.
I love a good quip.
Bad business practice predates any political fads or trends. We used to have a regional dry goods chain called The Bon Marche'. It was high end, on a par with Nordstrom's. Then it was bought by Macy's. Then the low-rent business practices came into play: blocking aisle access with standalone displays and shelving for trendy clothing (making it a pain to navigate to the area of the store you were interested in), almost stocking clothing goods (no matter what kind of trousers you wanted, there was only one style in your size), arbitrary intended outages (looking for formal short-sleeve shirts---officewear---not finding them and being told they were "seasonal" wear...seasons, in an air-conditioned office?), absence of clerks (clothes in hand at counter and no one to be seen), and clothing left in a mess from the previous day's handling. At least they were not posting signs in Spanish (e.g., Sears), but they weren't far from it. I stopped shopping there a long time ago because it was a waste of time, irritating, and a big frustration to search and seek, and find nothing. They went out of business here a few years ago. Customers finally had no appetite for the low-rent crap behavior and better options were available.
This overlays the Russian discovery of U.S. and NATO regular troops killed in Ukraine, wearing "mercenary" uniforms (but having national markings). For Ukraine to join NATO would take off the glove---and give Putin a clear road to immediately devastate NATO resources and facilities with hypersonic conventional weapons. Nukes are not needed to cripple NATO; just an attack that cannot be defended against.
That includes the U.S. We have critical resources within several hundred miles of each coastline, accessible to cruise-missile-launching submarines. Why do you suppose they were built in the first place? (A little tricky. The SOSUS anti-submarine warning network would need to be taken offline, and there would be some interesting hide-and-seek with our own subs.)
The elections in Washington are as fake as hen's teeth, but this is hardly remarkable. For a simultaneous primary, it is relevant to know which primary one is participating in. Facilitates sorting without breaking open the envelope.
The patent is clearly from the Israeli program with Raytheon to develop a laser adjunct to their Iron Dome air defense system.
They have existed in one form or another for half a century (been there, done that). But there is no evidence for space-based DEWs, including circumstantial. And there is a very good reason for that: in the 1980s, we found early in the game that space-based lasers worth the money were too big and had poor duration. Just a gigantic technical and operational headache. We used an airborne laser in 2010 to shoot down a boosting ballistic missile, but Obama killed the program and scrapped the system.