MicroB

Thats a very old photo from 2013, when he was 67. He has less hair now. You notice it from the back But given you have dug up an old photo for the benefit of othe,rs, useful prompt for a montage 1984, aged 38 1994, aged 48 Trumpf in 2004 aged 58 In 2014, aged 68 2024, aged 78 Without makeup With makeup, at an Iowa rally (confirmed as a raw photo, so I assume it was an indoor venue with strong lighting)

I think he's referring to the arousing final image. At the Border, Trumpf didn't apply his make upwell, and ended up with a bleached anus look

What Flipkowski and others are doing are screen shoting Kennedy's tweets, because he's been busy deleting them. He didn't change his spots after a week. A week ago he wanted a spot in Harris's cabinet as the price to endorsement. He got told to Foxtrot Romeo Oscar. Now you are spreading falsehoods about when Ron Flipkowski tweeted the screenhot. Kennedy, it seems, is attempting to deceive, and I am certain you don't approve of politicians who practice deception. Flipkowski posted it 24th August 2024. You owe user "shdmn" an apology and correction.

It's satire not a fake photo. Fake photo are photos created to deliberately deceive. It's not a photo that is supposed to fool you into thinking Trump and Hamel were photographed strolling down a street holding hands, checking out other men. Its a variation of a popular meme that has been in circulation for many years, showing a young couple walking, with the guy glancing back at an apparently more attractive female. Its called the Distracted Boyfriend meme, which first appeared almost 10 years ago. The people in the photo are Spanish (Catalan), Mario and Laura (we don't know who the lady in the red dress is named) What it conveys is the suggestion that Trump might drop Hamel as his running mate and instead appoint Kennedy. Even if he wanted to, he can't do it, as it needs to be voted on by an ad hoc Republican party committee. But it is a legit question to ask, no matter how one wants to frame the question.

Holding hands. That's nice. Trumpf should adopt shirt sleeves and shirt out more often. Seriously.

He and other Cold War Warriors all helped make sure you weren't reduced to ashes. I suspect though you might be a bit young to remember the Cold War, and your knowledge of the Vietnam War has come from Tropic Thunder. During the Cold War, American teenagers in Colorado managed to beat off a combined Soviet/Cuban air assault. I'm not certain when Tim Walz joined the Wolverines. Patrick Swayze received the enduring thanks of a nation through multiple movie contracts, until he tragically roundhouse kicked himself. Charlie Sheen got AIDS.

Thread hijack. I ignore such rudeness. Stick to the topic as requested before, or don't bother posting. Start your own thread on what wars Natsuki Obama, the Japanese fashion model, fought in. Interesting premise though; why are you interested now in Japanese fashion models. Or Camaroonian football players. Could be a good thread.

While we are in a period of disinflation, inflation is likely to return by Q1 next year, as wage increases start to kick in. At some point, peoples salaries have to catch up, but it will be short lived. Afghanistan didn't have any inflation. Prices are -7%. Yellowtail maybe thinks the US should emulate the economic performance of the Emirate of Afghanistan.

https://gfmag.com/data/economic-data/worlds-highest-lowest-inflation-rates/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1034154/monthly-inflation-rates-developed-emerging-countries/ I think you have mixed up Russia with the United States.

As usual, it depends on how you define poverty. US Census says its 11.5% https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/poverty-awareness-month.html I don't know where Trumpf got 70% from. Apparently 70% of US households have at least one pet: https://vet-advantage.com/companion-news/70-of-u-s-households-have-pets-appa-finds-in-new-survey/ Maybe he thinks more people should have more pets, like bald eagles. Perhaps he was thinking of this survey; https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/high-prices-and-interest-rates-leave-70-of-americans-doubting-home-ownership-in-2024 Somewhat related https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/12/renters-poll-owning-home Its sort of flawed. Renters might well say they can't afford a house, but people owning a home will obviously say they can afford a home. But Generation Rent is a thing, but does that mean they are in poverty because they rent?

The longest range missile systems Belarus has is a handful of Chinese designed Polonez-M S300 systems with a 300km range. https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/08/25/7471845/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-calls-belarus-pull-back-forces-border-2024-08-25/ https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/08/25/kyiv-says-belarus-concentrating-troops-on-border-warns-against-unfriendly-actions-a86143

More to do with demographics. Its not so much that the non-Slavic Russians despise the Slavs. The Slavs despise them. They are pretty racist. But Slavs aren't reproducing, so the next 20 years will see shifts in the country's demographics, which will now accelerate thanks to their frontline losses. You wonder about discriminaton against Russians in Ukraine. Have a read of this Russian paper: https://csegr.ru/discrimination-against-russians-in-ukraine-eng/ Note, it calls Ukrainians "Little Russians", and its little Russians who discriminate against "Great Russians". So how can they be different ethnicities? Bit like the Brits blaming the Irish. Given what Stalin did to Ukraine, its fair to say Ukraine has a point in deciding its had enough of being called Little Russia. While you say you are not trying to justify Putin, you are. You've fallen for Kremlin claims of genocide in 2014 which justified intervention. Nothing Russia said was true.

They are made in Russia now. Technically, its called Geran-2. The Iranian version used COTS componants, and navigated using US GPS. Russia has replaced the guts within using Russian hardened parts and the Russian GLONASS navigation system, which improves loitering. They are built in Tatarstan. I suspect the Iranian versions were ok for a while, but ultimately a bit cack. Iran is good at making Gucci looking kit, but when you peel it back, its a bit poundshop. eg Hmm, looks modern. Sort of looks like an Abrams. Its a heavily modified US M60 from the 1960s.

Well he should add citizenship deprivation orders to any immigrant or offspring of immigrants convicted of any crime. Harsh, but fair. Target their offspring as well. He should target in particular white collar crime, because their crimes have a much greater impact on society, make an example of them.

Yes, he needs to tighten up on financial crime. As he is worried about immigrant criminals, he could take a leaf out of the UK's approach, which has been to include citizenship deprivation orders for those convicted of crime, and who is eligable for a second citizenship. Jack Letts was born in the UK to a British mother, and with a Canadian father. He lived all his life in Oxfordshire, until he decided to travel to Iraq. He is now convicted of crimes against the Iraqi state. The UK stripped him of UK citizenship, suggesting he can apply for a Canadian passport. Similarly, Shamima Begum, born in the UK, stripped of her UK citizenship. The UK government say she can apply to the Bangladeshi courts to gain Bangladeshi citizenship, so not their problem. Trumpf can become British through the 1981 British Nationality Act, Section 4C, where people born outside of the UK, before 1983 to a British born mother, can apply for citizenship. Normally a Good Character test is required, but since 2019, this no longer applies to 4C applicants. Trumpf cannot be rendered stateless, because he is half-American. His mother, remember, was an illiterate maid from rural Scotland, who nevertheless had the means to cross the Atlantic multiple times while taking low waged jobs in the US, and managed to get herself invited to high society parties to meet the upcoming New York entrepaneurs. Wonder if there were other single women at these parties? Did they understand her Lewes accent? He can go live at a house like this. They're pretty cheap, and its possible the local council will still have a few on the books to rent.

Under Republican Party rules, members can reconvene or hold a vote among a smaller group that could determine Vance’s replacement. A replacement would need a majority of votes to be selected. That also applies if Vance voluntarily steps down. If Vance is sacked, no doubt he will start briefing against his former mate/

Beats voting for a rapist and convicted con-artist, who literally bragged in 2016 how he was ripping off the American taxpayer by evading taxes, claiming that made him "smart". Whenever he doesn't pay taxes, then some other poor sap has to pay double to pay for the cops that fight crime, to pay the soldiers who keep your country safe, to pay the VA to take care of the veterans hurt while keeping your country safe, to take your garbage away, to pay the doctors and nurses who take care of your elderly.

The reasons why is myriad. My belief is he invaded because he needs more slavic Russians to shore up his powerbase, and ensure its slavic Russians who run Russia, not all these other groups he is forced to horse trade with. His destruction of Checehnya showed his attitude to non-slavic Russians; they are untermenschen. I don't think he fears NATO expansion with respect to Russian sovereignty. He knows NATO would not attack, but he's afraid NATO will cause him to lose influence among people he regards as kinfolk; the slavs in Belarus, Ukraine, and in central Asia, such as Kazakhstan, So NATO expansionism, real or imagined, is just an excuse. But the timing is complete dictator miscalculation. Why in February 2022 did he attack Ukraine at that moment, because he thought he could get away with it. He assumed the West was weak, that the response would be weak, that it would be much like when he sent his forces into Georgia. I think he intended originally during April 2021, when the weather was good, allowing a blitzkried attack to decapitate Kiev, and win the war quickly. I think Russia staged a drone attack in the Donbass, creating a casus belli; https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/a-4-year-old-child-died-in-donbas-after-ukrainian-army-drone-attack/ After that, there were a series of provocations from the Russian side, without a reaction from Ukraine. On 10 April, Ukraine called a OSCE meeting to complain about Russian troop buildups. A few days later, there was a relatively minor confrontation between some Ukrainian navy ships escorting civilian ships, no casualties. The next day, Russia closed part of the Black Sea to shipping, on the pretext of upcoming exercises, but effectively, this was a naval blockade of Ukraine. Surprisingly, Shoigu a week later, then started pulling some troops from the border. I don't think this was something to defuse tensions, but because the moment had passed, and the troops needed to be rotated; they had been 2 months in the field, and that part of Russia is bug infected, impacting troop morale. Later on, one of the reasons why the Russian invasion failed, was because troops had been too long in the field and were not 100% operational, with numerous vehicle breakdowns. He thought it would be a swift war; troops had packed ceremonial uniforms for the victory parades, some Russian officers even made restaurant reservations in Kiev. Galtieri miscalculated as well in 1982, in his timing attacking the Falklands. He thought the British would not respond. He and Putin do not understand democracies. Compounding that, Putin has been in considerable isolation over the last few years; he is genuinely fearful of COVID-19.

Ukrainian gunner takes out Russian Shahed drone using a gimpy. One kiddies' cancer ward saved. Technically an air-to-air kill by a helicopter.

Actually, it was his dad who fixed it for him.

No you have extensive airbrushing and really bad fanboi caricatures Compare and contrast images

Project 2025 states on day one it will downsize the EPA. Banning or restricting pesticides needs two steps. 1. Assessing which pesticides to ban, on the basis of harm. The move will require consideration of not just existing pesticides, but also derivastives; will a pesticide manufacturer attempt to evade a ban by tweaking the formula, for instance. The EPA, a creation ironically of Richard Nixon, is under resourced; Trumpf, during his first administration, rolled back more than 100 EPA regulations, designed to protect Americans and the American environment, because the regulations were seen as hurting American industry https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html During his tenure, he attempted to cut the EPA budget by 30% each time. This resulted in cutting of the scientists and inspectorate, through hiring freezes, early retirements and job elimination. It takes years to built up a technical capability, and so rebuilding the EPA is not something that can be done quickly; the skillset has gone. The EPA already had a tough job recruiting, because its looking for people with the same skillsets as industry. The people who eschew a career industry in favour of a career in the EPA are tremendously motivated in what they do, and what they do is a good thing. The cuts have harmed the EPA's abilties to identify harmful chemicals (though these capabilties were never that great. Consider the EPA's efforts to ban asbestos, which were a complete debacle. The problem was that industry helped write the regulations that the EPA was working to. Which meant when there is a need to ban something, the EPA is obliged the consider the least burdensome approach, rather than simply banning something. This has lead to paralysis in the agency: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1764141/ Until 2007, the EU followed the same approach to classifying chemicals, through a risk based approach, which means EPA officials have to prove a chemical is harmful. This leads to decades of the public being exposed to harm before a chemical is removed. In 2007, the EU switched to a Hazard-based approach; the burden (and the cost) was placed on the manufacturer to prove their product is safe (REACH Directive). The US tried something similar through a Democrat bill, the 2005 KID Safe Chemicals Act. Lobbyists and Republicans killed it. The Toxic Substances Control Act saw reform in 2016, to try and remove the "least burdensome" language. Between 2016 and 2022, the agency only managed to ban one substance, asbestos. Lack of funding has meant that of the top 10 chemicals identified to be looked at, only a handful will be banned. before 2025. So forget about a whole raft of additional pesticides. On the list waiting to be banned: 1-Bromopropane (draft risk assessment just done) Carbon Tetrachloride (draft risk assessment very soon) C.I. Pigment Violet 29 (PV29) Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster (HBCD) 1,4-Dioxane Methylene Chloride N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP) Perchloroethylene Trichloroethylene (TCE) I cannot see Trumpf adopting legislation simiar to REACH (which itself is imperfect); to him, it will sound too Communist, industry will claim the costs are burdensome, and either push back or demand Federal compensation for the extra costs of doing business. I've had conversations like this during my career. In Northern Ireland, the water utility is still part of the government. The NI Water Service was very worried about a local well known brewery. During the beer making process, spent Wort, which is high in carbohydrate, is dumped into the sewage system. This extra load of CHO kills the system; makes it rapidly go anaerobic. I had discussions with the brewer, revolving around the company installing their own treatment works, to treat their waste before it enters the municipal system. The push back was this was expensive, and would probably lead the brewery to cancel other projects, maybe job losses, even pulling out of Northern Ireland. This was Northern Ireland, just after the Good Friday Agreement, and after the Republican terrorists had their US revenue stream cut. No one wanted to go back to the bad old days. So the taxpayer sucked up the cost of dealing with industries' waste. 2. In addition to having the technical ability to assess harmful chemicals, to ban their use in agriculture, you need an inspectorate to monitor the farms. Thats expensive. Won't happen if Project 2025 slashes budgets to the bone. One of the outcomes of a risk based assessment is that chemicals are banned for certain uses but not others. A restriction won't necessarily stop production or import. Risk assessment considers the hazard (will the chemical cause cancer in blond haired blue eyed kids) but also liklihood (ie driven by eating contaminated food stuffs). So a ban might be instigated on that sunflower field, because people will eat the oil or seeds. But it might not be implemented to repress weeds in an ornamental garden, because no one is going to eat the flowers (or unlikely to). There is nothing wrong really with the REACH approach, but it does add to the cost of business. Funnily enough, for medical devices, it was the other way around. It was a lot easier to get a medical device put on the market in Europe that the US. Medical devices undergo all sorts of clinical assessment to determine efficacy and safety. The FDA is concerned with both, and frequently turn down applications if they feel the tests is not good enough. For instance, the best way to screen for colorectal cancer is not colonoscopy; that's most useful if there is something to be wrong, which in general, with the exception of Germany (to an extent), Europe follows. So Europe has strong stool testing programmes; blood in your stool is a red flag for possible CRC, triggering a colonoscopy. US doctors would like the same and there are stool screening programmes, but with very poor uptake. Which is why the ACA added free colonoscopies, because a colonoscopy was better than nothing. People don't like the stool test for understandable reasons. Its dirty. So the holy grail is a blood test. Two companies, Exact Sciences and Epigenomics, came up with "new" tests. Exact Sciencesis a US company. Its really a lab service. Their test was still a stool test, which involves exactly the same test for blood as the $10 stool test. But they carry out additional genetic analyses to detect cancer specific markers. It has a similar specificity as the present $10 test, but better sensitivity. The cost is $3000. The FDA granted it approval on the basis that it was at least as good as the existing $10 test. By all accounts, the test has sold very well/ Epigenomics in a German test. They came up with a test kit that could be sold to any hospital lab, utilising something called methylated PCR. Normal hospital lab instruments could be used. The cost per test was going to be about £250 to the lab. I suspect the cost to the payer would be $400-500. The test was very sensitive, but it failed a little on specificity because it could also pick up some lung cancers early on. The FDA rejected it, because of that, despite Epigenomics arguing that a blood test would see more people get screened, resulting in the early identification of more cancers, and better survival rates. The older European system was argued that it meant there was more innovation and European patients were able to access technologies 6 years sooner than in the US. But on the other hand, it might result in bad devices getting on to the market. One of the incongruities of the regulations around blood tests is that Europe only considered the safety of the lab tech. So, in a HIV test, they would consider the risk of exposure to infectious agents, rather than the risk to the patient if they got the wrong result (a disaster either way). Thats all changing, to something more like the FDA, where makers have to demonstrate their devices work. Predictable moans; a French manufacturer of acupuncture needles complained he needed to produce clinical data that acupuncture works. It's sheer fantasy that Trumpf will add to the cost burdens of corporations by requiring them to switch to alternative pesticides, or that he will even fund the EPA properly . If Kennady was persuaded by this, he was hoodwinked. Here's the paradoxl many of Trumpf's supporters are actually in favour of quite leftwing policies, such as governmental interferance in a private life, government interferance in business, restricting free trade. This is an old video, but it makes me laugh about these old anarchists supporting Trumpf in 2020.

Trumpf his so hard, that he has sex with Lions and the Lion is grateful. This is screwed up. I know whack jobs in love with Trumpf like to put together crazy art, but Trumpf likes this.

https://www.natesilver.net/p/we-removed-rfk-jr-from-our-model

Am I supposed to answer that? I am not telepathic. Professor X is a comic book character, and not real. I am content that I recognise Ukraine as a sovereign nation. I am not content that people such as yourself refuse to recognise the independance of Ukraine. I suspect the apologists for Russia are of a mind that Ukraine is not a real country without a real language. I have seen them state that. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18233844 https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/02/17/lets-call-ukraine-by-its-proper-name/#260980ce5d8b You said by private message that you appreciated that I did not attack your posts like other forum members, but here you are being sarcastic and attacking, for no reason it seems but to boost your posting count. Why did you feel compelled to post that worthless post? It has no value, and adds nothing to a discussion, except feeding your ego. Its been 33 years. Have some respect for a country's constitution.