I've followed Bill Gates since the early days of Microsoft. I was a programmer back in the 70s and have followed him ever since. He's just a techie nerd who made it big.
Bill gates spent millions on installing sanitation in Africa to help combat disease; he also spent millions trying to get safe nuclear power (which I think is essential for our long-term survival). He is extremely rich and has no need for more money. He has no interest in killing us. I've never understood why Bill Gates has this reputation. I've been in IT for 40+ years and he's just a technology nerd who made it big.
I've had a flu vaccine this season and I plan to get the c-19 vaccine as soon as I can. I've had dozens of vaccines over the course of my life. I still only have one head, two arms, two feet ...
But why would you feel betrayed? If he supported it/got behind it, maybe there's some validity to it? I plan to get the vaccine as soon as I'm eligible (I'm over 60).
Why would Bill Gates want to reduce population? He's still benefiting from Microsoft Stock, and that's a mass-market consumer product. Why kill off your customers?
Wow, a rational comment on the subject of Vaccines! Rare!
I also have a theory that those who peddle questionable conspiracy theories prefer making videos to publishing text, because text is easier to challenge (respond to); you can copy / paste text and specifically address it, but with a video, the best you can do is say 'I really don't agree with what you said at the 1:03:33 marker ...
Why? Russia has had massive nuclear arms forever, and has recently suffered a great loss of face (breakup of the USSR). Russia has a hopeless economy compared to CCP, but that could be a positive or a negative, depending on how you look at it. We do a tremendous amount of trade with CCP, and that tends to be a good thing - you don't start wars with your trading partners. Russia makes ... vodka and caviar ... they have nothin to lose.
One point that strikes me is - this guy is an attention whore, and with all those tattoos, he's hardly a subtle guy who could go unnoticed. Not even considering his manner of dress, which COULD be changed. So - if you were DS and you were looking to insert people into an organization as infiltrators, would you really pick this guy? I mean, DS isn't that stupid. You want people with no history, who can fly under the radar.
It's rare but happens every few years. Last night was hell!
And if you try to challenge them, you get downvoted / banned!
Does no one ever read / write any more...? :) I can't sit and watch a video for 1:32:55 but I can read an article with the same level of content. I have people around me, I work in a quiet environment. I just wish there was less focus on vids and more on text. Maybe I'm old fashioned!
Well just a simple example, the whole 'I prefer heroes who weren't captured' - in relation to McCain - was pretty nasty. We have a war veteran who was a POW for several years, and Trump belittled him. I can see nothing positive about that. Sure, McCain deserves some shit, but not THAT kind of shit. But regardless of what you, or I, think of that event, it had a hugely negative impact on his popularity and he would have been better served not to have done it. He could have won by a Tsunami if he'd been more careful - a Tsunami that would have overcome any level of voter fraud.
I really despise 'social media' in most forms. I despise the way they incentivize anger and discord. It's been proven that people engage more on Social Media when there's conflict, so they have absolutely no incentive to stop mis-information and anger. So they allow crazy claims to be made, because they know that will trigger more reaction. Sadly, I see the revocation of Sec 230 as the only way to address this; let them be sued. But while the FB's and Twatters of the world will roll with it and eventually adjust (maybe), it will kill off many smaller operations who simply don't have the time or capacity to moderate sufficiently. So maybe an exemption for smaller operators. To your example, though, 'abortion is murder' would be allowed I would have thought - it's your opinion - while 'lynch a cracka ...' would be banned because it's a clear incitement to violence. Not sure what your point is. If you said, 'kill an abortion doctor', that would be banned, but not 'abortion is murder'.
Have you watched 'Man in the high castle'? I think it's on Amazon Prime. It's an alternative / dystopian future where Japan / Germany won the war; West coast is Japan's, east coast is Germany's, and middle bit is 'the neutral zone'. Worth a watch (I know it's no longer fashionable to talk about Amazon but they do some good shows).
Just a couple of observations (don't make arguments that don't pan out):
- "They are removing conservative lawmakers" - not sure what that is about.
- lowering voting age to 16; I don't think that stands up to scrutiny. They are trying to get people REGISTERED ahead of elections so that, when they turn 18, they are 'ready'. There were instances where people turned 18 on, say, Nov 1 but it was too late for them to register. So the idea is to allow people to register any time after 16, eg if you apply for your drivers license at 16, you are 'all set' to vote when you turn 18.
Green movement, saving power ...
No, the better example would be to say 'The easter bunny doesn't exist but I'll happily attend an Easter lunch'. His humor was very clear - he's an atheist but he's making a self-contradictory assertion by saying he can see Gods work.
He may be intelligent, but I don't think he has the range of emotional skills to be perfect for the job. His public rage against people who disagree with him is somewhat childish / immature. Even if McCain is a traitor, he is a popular, well-respected guy in influential circles and it would have been better to publicly treat him with respect; while hating him in private if he needed to! This is a trait that endears him to his 'base' but his 'base' is already on board, and he should pay more attention to the 'rest'.
Not a very attractive lady; any other thoughts?
The idea of high-ups in the military not liking what the govt. is up to is as old as the hills; think of various coup attempts around the world (eg, Pinochet in Chile, Franco in Spain, etc). So 'Q' could just be a 'contemporary' version of that, fashioned to appeal to today's environment.
I posted some time ago that I felt that Q was the 'brains' behind the operation, and Trump was just a convenient 'front man' who had the media smarts and independent wealth to campaign and win. I don't see Trump as the 'stable genius' that others attribute to him; his brash nature has proven to be a liability (eg, harping on McCain and alienating voters in AZ, where I live).
I'm not in the habit of listening to him but last time I checked (when the pope's disappearance came up) there was a reference to events of the previous days.
Sec 230 simply says a platform is NOT liable for content it allows to appear on it. So if I say 'you are a child eating monster' on FB, you can't sue FB for allowing that.
FB is, completely independent of Sec 230, at liberty to define its own 'Terms of Service' that can say 'you must not call someone a child eating monster'. When you first sign up for an account on these platforms, they present you with their 'terms of service' and you have to check a box saying you have read and agreed to them. So they can ban you because you violated the TOS you actually agreed to.
So FB (and twitter, parler, gab, etc), as private corporations, have no obligation to respect the 1st amendment, as that only pertains to the government, not private corps. Now, where this can get tricky is - even though FB (and others) are private companies, they could not exist without the presence of a vast public infrastructure (the 'internet') (well, its a mix of private and public, but it's certainly some federally funded pieces). So the federal govt. does potentially have some leverage over them. Think about broadcast companies (Fox, CNN, etc); they use a scarce public commodity (frequency bandwidth) that is licensed by the FCC (they are granted a limited form of monopoly), and thus, under their control. That's why the FCC can and do stop broadcasters from broadcasting 'undesirable' content.
I was skeptical but I finally got my head around the fact that the world really has been fairly stable for a very long time (temperature-wise), even during the 'ice ages' and such. Just a few degrees makes a big difference. Here's a great, simple chart that illustrated it well for me. The coldest ice-age in the past 20,000+ years was only 4 degrees C lower than today (ON AVERAGE, across the globe) and we are now heading up by about 1 degrees C above average, but on a very fast trajectory. I'm an engineer/scientist and have no problem believing this.
I'd say he's a 'typical businessman', and the story about DOS is typical (I agree with you). Steve Jobs nabbed the idea of a mouse (and more) from Xerox (PARC - Palo Alto Research Center). I doubt there is a billionaire alive today who got there by being 100% saintly - and that included The Donald! It's why I'll never be a billionaire (how's that for self-justification!).