LosLobo

Yeah, just like the 2020 Stolen Election.

In Time’s 1938 edition, the magazine, along with the cover, warned that Hitler was "the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today." Curious, isn’t it? No such warning when Trump landed the title for 2024—though this is glaringly evident to anyone who bothers to connect the dots. As the saying goes: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” History doesn’t just echo—it often blares like a warning siren for those willing to listen.

Donnie must be chomping at the bit to get a copy for Melania. I wonder if the nappy gets in the way. Trump Asked Stormy Daniels to Spank Him with Forbes Magazine

Trump's 1.5% popular vote win would be considered a narrow victory compared to past U.S. presidential elections and by no stretch of the imagination a "huge mandate". Biden (2020): Won by 4.5%. Obama (2008): Won by 7.3%. Bush (2004): Won by 2.4%. Clinton (1996): Won by 8.5%. A 1.5% win is marginal and wouldn't provide a strong mandate for sweeping policy changes, especially in such a deeply divided electorate. Joe must have been an evil genius to orchestrate a global economic shift, ensuring the U.S. boasts one of the best inflation rates while the rest of the world struggles.

Trump's latest pitch unveils his vision of a kleptocracy—an economy crafted for himself and his oligarch allies, modeled after Putin's playbook. And the voters who put him in power? Let them eat the hollow "cake" of culture wars...... 'In a post to his Truth Social platform on Tuesday, Trump said: "Any person or company investing ONE BILLION DOLLARS, OR MORE, in the United States of America, will receive fully expedited approvals and permits, including, but in no way limited to, all Environmental approvals. GET READY TO ROCK!!!' A government of oligarchs that will exist to solely serve the interests of oligarchs while distracting working people with culture wars," wrote former GOP adviser turned anti-Trump strategist Ron Filipkowski. 'Government of the billionaires': Trump's new pitch triggers explosive outcry

Yet 'making up false dichotomies' is OK for you. You accuse others of crafting false dichotomies, but your OP is a masterclass in simplistic binaries and flawed reasoning. Let’s dissect the litany of logical missteps, all of which show the real 'paucity of your discussion and comprehension skills': Hasty Generalization: The statement "many people want Putin to have problems" is a sweeping claim made without evidence. It assumes widespread sentiment but fails to provide supporting data or context. False Cause: The claim that "getting rid of Assad is just another advantage" implies a direct benefit to Putin without considering the complexities. Assad’s fall could actually represent a strategic loss for Russia, particularly by endangering key military bases like Tartus. Appeal to Ignorance: The assertion that "sanctions are having no effect" dismisses substantial evidence to the contrary. Sanctions have strained Russia's economy, causing inflation, labor shortages, and disruption to supply chains. False Dichotomy: The statement "He's just got to sit back and watch as the West ties itself in knots" constructs a simplistic binary: either Russia is entirely unchallenged and successful, or the West is completely ineffective and struggling. This reductive framing ignores Russia’s significant economic instability and military losses. Straw Man: The claim that "the population are not being called up because he is using Koreans instead" misrepresents the situation. While there are reports of foreign fighters, the primary burden of the conflict overwhelmingly falls on Russian forces. These logical fallacies not only weaken your argument but also oversimplify the complexities of the geopolitical landscape. Engaging critically with such statements requires considering broader context and nuance.

Your take on Putin’s situation seems overly optimistic and overlooks several critical realities: "It is all going his way": Russia has faced severe setbacks in Ukraine—territorial losses, a strained military, and massive casualties. Far from thriving, Russia is increasingly isolated and economically weakened. "Getting rid of Assad is just another advantage": Abandoning Assad undermines Russia’s long-term interests in the Middle East, including its influence and naval access via Tartus. This is no strategic "win." "Russia is on a military economy": A wartime economy strains resources and civilian sectors. Sanctions and loss of advanced technology access make sustaining this model increasingly unsustainable. "Using Koreans instead of calling up Russians": This is unsubstantiated. Russia’s heavy reliance on conscription and prisoner recruits reflects genuine manpower issues, not stability. "Sanctions are having no effect": This assertion is divorced from reality. Sanctions have limited Russia’s access to critical technologies, crippled key industries, and pushed the economy into unsustainable short-term workarounds. Inflation, high interest rates, and food supply chain issues have hit the average Russian hard. "No strategic loss in Syria": Losing influence in Syria is a clear setback, allowing rivals like Turkey or Iran to expand their presence, reducing Russia’s leverage. "He can sit back and watch the West in knots": This ignores reality. NATO remains united, and Western sanctions continue to pressure Russia. Putin faces mounting challenges at home and abroad. In sum, it’s a stark reversal—Russia’s "superpower" status increasingly looks like it’s being propped up by duct tape, borrowed gear, and a collapsing arms export industry. Sanctions, military overreach, and a tarnished reputation for military technology are eroding the pillars of Russian power. Claiming it’s all "going his way" seems more like wishful thinking than a reflection of reality.

The title "Donald Trump’s Surprising Role as an Environmental Advocate" is misleading. The text shows no evidence of Trump supporting environmental protection, only speculating on a potential reversal of Biden's policies to oppose his green energy agenda.

Right! The Manhattan Institute, StandWithUs, and National Review—nothing less than the Holy Trinity of conservative ideology that would make Rupert of Faux News blush with pride.

Although Stockholm syndrome is frequently referenced in hostage scenarios, it can also apply to abusive relationships such as you describe. Stockholm syndrome - Wikipedia

The Republican-led committee, with Marjorie Taylor Greene leading the charge, isn’t about accountability—it’s a political smear job. Blaming Fauci while ignoring Trump’s disastrous handling of the pandemic is far easier than confronting the real failures. Instead of investigating, they’re spinning conspiracy theories like space lasers to avoid facing the truth.

You’re correct that climate models rely on solving PDEs like Navier-Stokes and require numerical approximations due to the complexity of Earth's systems. However, the claim that better technology won’t impact predictions for years overlooks how iterative improvements refine both short- and long-term forecasts. Uncertainties are a feature of modeling complex systems, not a flaw, and the consistent upward trend in global temperatures is supported by robust, independently verified models. Uncertainty often points to the potential for worse outcomes, not less severe ones. As for the graphic, it’s outdated and adds little to the discussion. The coarse 2.8° x 2.8° grid from CCM3 reflects decades-old modeling, while modern models use much finer resolutions, capturing regional effects far more accurately. Using such an example doesn’t reflect today’s advanced climate science.

Your post is drowning in logical fallacies and ignores the facts: Strawman: No scientist denies the Sun affects climate. Fact: Solar output has been steady or declining while Earth warms—this isn’t solar-driven. Appeal to Ridicule: Mocking “tiny brains” doesn’t substitute for evidence. Science requires data, not cheap shots. Red Herring: Solar cycles, Milankovitch wobbles, and Maunder minimums act over centuries or millennia. Fact: These don’t explain today’s rapid, human-driven warming. Appeal to Incredulity: CO2’s tiny concentration is irrelevant. Fact: Small amounts of potent gases (like ozone or methane) can transform the atmosphere. False Equivalence: The Medieval Warm Period was regional, not global. Fact: Today’s warming is faster, global, and driven by fossil fuels. Gish Gallop: Throwing out terms like “solar winds” confuses the issue. Fact: Peer-reviewed science proves human emissions are the primary driver. Conspiracy Thinking: The 97% consensus is real, based on studies of thousands of climate papers. Fact: Denying it doesn’t make it disappear. False Dichotomy: It’s not “Sun or CO2.” Fact: Modern warming is caused by CO2 emissions dominating natural factors. Buzzwords and snark don’t refute decades of research. Start with the facts if you want to debate. Sources: NASA Earth Science National Geographic's Climate Change Section Global Warming NASA Climate Change - Vital Signs of the Planet

Unless you want to buy into some of my sponsored crypto of course! Bitcoin flirts with $100k as crypto industry rallies for Trump Or devalue the dollar to improve trade. Trump trade advisers plot dollar devaluation - POLITICO

Trump ranting about BRICS ditching the dollar while launching his own crypto venture? Classic hypocrisy. With Saudi now in BRICS, MBS must be wondering about the ROI on those billions. And with Vlad in the mix, the Moscow Ritz-Carlton director’s cut might finally drop.

I am enjoying it. I prefer a slow burn—latency can be a virtue in film, as in life, especially when it builds to a satisfying climax.

Having never played or watched a game of chess in my life, I was initially uninterested in the series: The Queen's Gambit (TV Mini Series 2020) - IMDb 8.5/10. However, after four years I finally got around to binge-watching the entire series and I have to say it's a worthwhile must-watch for anyone who hasn't seen it yet.

I just completed this quiz. My Score 30/100 My Time 267 seconds  

Your post is more of an opinion piece than fact, lacking credible or reliable sources. Let’s set the record straight: Trump's Conviction: Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts in the Stormy Daniels case. According to New York law CPL § 380.20, a conviction is official once a jury finds a defendant guilty, and sentencing happens separately. Andrew Napolitano: Napolitano served as a judge in New Jersey, not New York, so his perspective doesn’t carry weight on this case. His tenure (1987–1995) doesn't make him an authority here. Newsmax and Napolitano’s Credibility: Both are unreliable. Newsmax often pushes biased narratives and conspiracy theories, while Napolitano’s commentary is regularly criticized for lacking factual rigor and objectivity. In 1998 he worked for Fox News until he was reportedly sacked following allegations of sexual misconduct, he then joined Newsmax. Your accusations of "lies" come across as ironic given your own misleading claims. Credible reliable sources should be the foundation of your argument, not bold, unsupported statements. NY Law CPL 380.30

'Reality' is evidence and a link to a reliable source.

YouTube Lite offers a subscription at half the cost of Premium, yet it provides only limited access to Premium features, which may not meet everyone's needs.

On Netflix (Dubbed in English from Swedish)

Please point to where I dispute the results. You’re right, they have nothing to do with my narrative, so what is the point of this strawman post?

Indeed, using a foreign credit card or a Paypal account linked to one for YouTube payments is not possible. I opted not to use my Bangkok Bank debit card to avoid cluttering the bank book, which is necessary for my visa extension, with minor subscription fees. Hence, I turned to True Money, which turned out to be quite the hassle and, in any case, it's no longer an option for YouTube payments. Ultimately, my only choice was to use AIS, which proved to be a dream experience.