thaicurious

Often? Yeah, I'd call 30,000 times often.* As to "can't these people think for themselves" I think that will be the question of the decade and probably there are already 30,000 theories from "sucker born every minute" to "everyone plays the fool". My own theory is a bit complex and some of it won't be liked by the likes of some posters here, I'd imagine. The big one for me, that I was surprised to discover in my own dealings with people and that I think has been really highlighted during the presidency of the twice impeached criminal defendant is the amount of pathology in society. For instance, among the general population (including my receptionist of many years and my brother married into a family of them--that we'd warned him about), about 8 to 13% are known to be pathological liars.** The absolute pathological liars (as opposed to people who just exaggerate or mix up stories or even lie on purpose for politics or whatever), the liars who lie for no reason, they have no choice and psychiatry has no way yet to fix them. They can be given some psychological tools but it is difficult to keep themselves in check because also they lie to themselves. And this defect of their brain can actually be seen in MRI studies which reveal an overabundance of white matter.*** That overabundance not only causes them to have trouble relating to truth in relation to lying, but also it creates in their minds associations of things that are not associated in reality. That's where all their conspiracy nonsense comes into play. They see two events and their overabundance of white matter causes them to think one caused the other when no such relationship exists. My theory, or cliche for that is simply "birds of a feather" because before internet, these pathological liars were isolated from each other. But now they get to compare notes, to compare their inappropriate associations with another pathological liars' inappropriate associations. i scientifically call that the yikes! factor. Another important part of the orange face painted, civilly found sex offender's ability to get people to believe his lies isn't really that people aren't thinking for themselves, but rather that they are thinking, being empathetic, giving benefit of the doubt, etc., basic human frailties upon which the con man preys. The danger of this out of shape guy facing 91 felony criminal charges isn't just that he threatens world stability about which those who can't think for themselves try to convince others that his NATO comment was just a joke, but that he's a high functioning pathological liar who given the chance would pull it off, would in league with Putin and the other authoritarian thugs with their Republican Party--no longer the GOP but the MAGA--destroy democracies here and abroad for their own perverted fun and profit. *https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/trump-lies-false-presidency-b1790285.html Final tally of lies: Analysts say Trump told 30,000 mistruths – that’s 21 a day – during presidency https://thehill.com/homenews/media/535081-wapost-counts-30573-false-or-misleading-claims-in-four-years-by-trump/ Washington Post counts 30,573 false or misleading claims in four years by Trump **https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9176035/#:~:text=Pathological lying exists in a,of 8%–13%. Pathological lying, distinct from normative lying and prolific lying, has a prevalence of 8%–13% ***https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376803/#:~:text=Liars showed a relatively widespread,some individuals to pathological lying. Liars showed a relatively widespread increase in white matter (23–36%) in orbitofrontal, middle and inferior, but not superior, frontal gyri

Dues? Full fledged member? You seem confused. It's NATO not Mar-a-NATO https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/13/politics/fact-check-trump-nato/index.html "...serially inaccurate about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military alliance...Trump has for years made a variety of other false claims about spending by NATO and its members. Here is a fact check... Trump has long claimed that various NATO members have failed to pay their “bills,” “dues” or “NATO fees,” that they “owe us a tremendous amount of money” or that they “owe NATO billions of dollars.” Facts First: All of these Trump claims are false. While a majority of NATO members do not meet the alliance’s target of each member spending a minimum of 2% of gross domestic product on defense, the 2% target is a “guideline” that does not create bills, debts or legal obligations if it is not met. In fact, the guideline doesn’t require payments to NATO or the US at all. Rather, it simply requires each country to spend on their own defense programs. NATO does require members to make direct contributions to fund the organization’s own operations. But there is no sign that members have failed to make those contributions, which constitute a tiny fraction of the allies’ defense spending, and Trump has made clear that his talk of debts is about the 2% guideline...." etc etc etc, you can read the rest in the link And here's NATO funding information for you to educate yourself on that. You're welcome. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm Funding NATO NATO is resourced through the direct and indirect contributions of its members. NATO’s common funds are composed of direct contributions to collective budgets and programmes, which equate to only 0.3% of total Allied defence spending (around EUR 3.3 billion for 2023). These funds enable NATO to deliver capabilities and run the entirety of the Organization and its military commands.... The 2% defence investment guideline In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending to continue to ensure the Alliance's military readiness. This guideline also serves as an indicator of a country's political will to contribute to NATO's common defence efforts since the defence capacity of each member has an impact on the overall perception of the Alliance's credibility as a politico-military organisation.... Direct funding of NATO NATO has annual budgets and programmes worth around EUR 3.3 billion, which inter alia support its permanent military command structure, enable its current operations and missions, and provide essential military infrastructure (including air and naval basing facilities, satellite communications, fuel pipelines, and command and control systems). This represents 0.3% of total Allied defence spending. This direct funding comes principally in two forms: common funding and joint funding. It can also come in the form of trust funds, contributions in kind, ad hoc sharing arrangements and donations....

historians, political scientists and presidential scholars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty Article 5[edit] The key section of the treaty is Article 5. Its commitment clause defines the casus foederis. It commits each member state to consider an armed attack against one member state, in the areas defined by Article 6, to be an armed attack against them all. Upon such attack, each member state is to assist by taking "such action as [the member state] deems necessary So all he'd have to do is "joke" "I don't deem it necessary" and he wouldn't have to send US forces. You'd either have to be an idiot to not understand this or purposely deceptive.

https://scri.siena.edu/us-presidents-study/about-the-presidents-study/ The study calls upon historians, political scientists and presidential scholars to rate the presidents in twenty areas: Background Imagination Integrity Intelligence Luck Willing to take risks Avoid crucial mistakes Court appointments Domestic Accomplishments Executive Appointments Foreign Policy accomplishments Handling of U.S. Economy Party leadership Relationship with Congress Ability to compromise Communication ability Executive ability Leadership ability Overall ability So they survey historians, political scientists and presidential scholars. And your qualifications are??? see also https://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/the-worst-presidents/slideshows/the-10-worst-presidents?slide=10 The 10 Worst U.S. Presidents Not all U.S. presidents are missed once they leave the White House. 2 (tie). Donald Trump Born: June 14, 1946 Presidential Term: Jan. 20, 2017 - Jan 20, 2021 Vice President: Mike Pence The only living president among the 10 worst presidents in history, Trump is also the only president to be impeached twice. Despite the swirling legal troubles around him – including criminal charges surrounding his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results – Trump is running again in the 2024 presidential election... (bolding mine)

Special rules wouldn't be needed. According to the Axios, by the language of the treaty itself any member could make their membership ineffective while still maintaining membership. Please try reading the Axios article that makes your point moot before declaring that no point has been made. If you have trouble understanding the article, feel free to simply google other sources which have determined similarly to what Axios has found to be the case.

Right, such a laughing stock that the world is shaken at the thought of losing its NATO partner. Biden is not a so-called leader. Biden is the President of the United States of America currently listed by Sienna College Research as the 19th best president the US has ever had. Trump is listed as the 2nd worst. See the difference? https://scri.siena.edu/2022/06/22/american-presidents-greatest-and-worst/ Siena’s 7th Presidential Expert Poll 1982 – 2022 Top Five, Rushmore Plus 1 Remain Unchanged; FDR, Lincoln, Washington, Teddy Roosevelt & Jefferson Worst Five Again – Andrew Johnson, Buchanan, Trump, Harding & Pierce Biden Enters Ranking 19th, LBJ Moves into Top Ten, Obama 11th, Ike firmly 6th, Ronald Reagan rated 18th Best President (bolding mine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siena_College_Research_Institute Siena College Research Institute (SCRI) is an affiliate of Siena College, located originally in Friars Hall and now in Hines Hall on the college's campus, in Loudonville, New York, in suburban Albany.[1][2][3] It was founded in 1980.[4] It conducts both expert and public opinion polls... starting in 1982 SCRI has polled presidential scholars in an effort to rate both the United States presidents[10][11] and U.S. First Ladies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siena_College Siena College is a private Franciscan college in Loudonville, New York.[6][7] Siena was founded by the Order of Friars Minor in 1937. The college was named after Bernardino of Siena, a 15th-century Italian Franciscan friar and preacher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franciscans The Franciscans are a group of related mendicant Christian religious orders within the Catholic Church. Founded in 1209 by the Italian saint Francis of Assisi

Your point is moot because even if the USA remained listed as a NATO member, as president, an impeached, indicted, arrested, civil court of justice determined sex abuser who only looks a tad younger because he paints his face orange can decide to not send military aid, effectively negating that membership... https://www.axios.com/2024/02/12/trump-nato-history "How can Trump affect the U.S.' role in NATO if elected? If elected, Trump is institutionally limited from unilaterally pulling the U.S. from NATO because of legislation passed by the Senate last year. The Constitution gives the Senate the power to adopt international treaties like NATO, but it doesn't clarify if the chamber needs to approve withdrawals from treaties. Recognizing that limitation, the Senate passed legislation that prohibits presidents from drawing the U.S. from NATO without two-thirds Senate approval or an act of Congress. However, Trump as president could still significantly damage the treaty by attempting to remove the U.S. and sending the matter to the courts. He could also continue to undermine the U.S.' commitment to other NATO countries. He could slash U.S. contributions to NATO's collective budget, as his administration sought to do in 2019, retract U.S. troops based in Europe or prevent the admission of new members, which requires unanimous approval. If a NATO member were attacked, Trump also isn't legally required to send armed forces or respond in a defined manner and could limit U.S. assistance or potentially withhold it entirely. This is because of the language of the treaty itself, which leaves the onus on members up to interpretation and discretion. The treaty does not require a specific response from members because it's founded on the trust that all members will collectively safeguard shared values, like individual liberty, democracy and human rights. But if that trust is gone, so too is the essence of the alliance." (bolding & underlining mine)

Yep, I also have 2nd hand experience by an architect colleague who stunned me (as I'd thought him more aware) when he proudly announced he'd landed a job with Trump, working directly with him. I'm going back a few decades already but if I remember right I'd carefully warned him (as I didn't want to be demeaning) of what I'd already heard, but he had to find out for himself. We had lunch often over many years (where he went from proud to complaining) and I recall one where we discussed how Trump seemed to think that working for him was the pay. At the time, I was at an international firm, way more prestigious and Fortune 5 larger, than the mom and pop and hookers Trump Org but I couldn't imagine my company telling me that putting them on my resume was part or all of my pay. That's my pay? Really? Buh-bye! See you in court. I don't recall my friend telling me about his final billing. But also I don't recall him ever saying he took a second job. Hopefully the majority of America also has already learned its lesson.

Trump said what? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/ Hundreds allege Donald Trump doesn’t pay his bills Donald Trump casts himself as a protector of workers and jobs, but a USA TODAY NETWORK investigation found hundreds of people – carpenters, dishwashers, painters, even his own lawyers – who say he didn’t pay them for their work. https://newrepublic.com/post/173722/donald-trump-long-long-history-not-picking-check Donald Trump Has a Long, Long History of Not Picking Up the Check The former president loves leaving promises unfulfilled and bills unpaid. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hundreds-claim-donald-trump-doesn-t-pay-his-bills-n589261 Retired piano dealer Michael Diehl says he has 30,000 reasons not to vote for Donald Trump for president. The small businessman said he won a bid in 1989 to supply $100,000 worth of grand pianos to Trump's Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City but was still waiting to be paid months after delivery. The gambling mecca finally told him it ran into financial difficulties and could only give him 70 cents on the dollar. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/15/trump-alleged-co-conspirators-never-got-paid-by-trump-team.html Trump stiffed his alleged co-conspirators, whose false claims brought in $250 million https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/08/trump-rallies-unpaid-bills-039631 Unpaid bills pile up in Trump rallies’ wake Cities across the country say the president’s campaign has failed to reimburse them for law enforcement costs. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/06/trump-didnt-pay-his-bills-for-decades.html Donald Trump Has a History of Not Paying His Bills. That Offers Some Insights Into His Personality. Something about someone not paying their bills?

Yeah, I was raised by US Coast Guard Aux very active members so have been in the Gulfstream between Florida and the Bahamas often and over many years so well aware of those circulation issues. My understanding is that it is not yet proven if is just a slowdown or a warning of a tipping point, but certainly the whole idea of all the fresh water ice melt is scary.

The following is still in study, so we don't know quite what it means yet, but minimally seems to underscore the seriousness of the situation https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-warming-sponges-caribbean-391ee1bb3dabb0496f0f2848849418b6 "A handful of centuries-old sponges from deep in the Caribbean are causing some scientists to think human-caused climate change began sooner and has heated the world more than they thought. They calculate that the world has already gone past the internationally approved target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times, hitting 1.7 degrees (3.1 degrees Fahrenheit) as of 2020. They analyzed six of the long-lived sponges — simple animals that filter water — for growth records that document changes in water temperature, acidity and carbon dioxide levels in the air, according to a study in Monday’s journal Nature Climate Change."

So, essentially an autoimmune disease. AIDS without the sex. Maskless people freely snorting airborne HIV. Send in the clowns telling everyone don't vax, don't put that vaccine in your body, because you don't want to interfere with COVID turning your immune system against you, um, I mean, you don't want to disrupt your natural immunity. Thus I'll continue to boost per evidence-based recommendations and to mask-up in public indoor spaces at least until I see efficacy numbers against transmission or, better yet, infection, given next gen mucosal aka intranasal vaccines. Some of the new ones are showing promise of stopping transmission at least in early animal studies. The USA might finally have a nasal vax going to the FDA for consideration by end of 2024.

see also What does past climate change tell us about global warming? (skepticalscience.com)

+ = What does past climate change tell us about global warming? (skepticalscience.com) "Climate Myth... Climate's changed before Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age.... (Climate Realty...) The total rate of global warming observed since the industrial revolution can only be explained by the observed excess of CO2 in the atmosphere. The excess of CO2 can only be explained via human sources. Let us first examine the post-industrial revolution warming and some of the telltale signs that humans are responsible. The human fingerprint How can we be sure that humanity’s release of greenhouse gases are to blame for the observed rise in global temperature? First, let’s look at evidence showing that greenhouse gases are causing the current warming. Then we will explore how we know that the recent increase in greenhouse gases is due to human activity. Greenhouse gases like CO2 are understood quite well, so we can make predictions about what we should observe. When CO2 is added to the atmosphere..."

Not sure how you conclude that just because technology hasn't yet entirely turned cleaner faster worldwide that this might mean the science incorrect or that the efforts to change course disingenuous, but I imagine your processes must be fascinating. Stopping the world in its tracks more than obviously would cause severe hardship, if not world ending wars, so we ease into change. That doesn't mean easing into change denies the problem that requires solving asap in order to not cause greater catastrophe later. You do the best you can and hope you don't screw up too much. And you do the best you can to reduce as much future suffering without causing too much current suffering. This is pretty basic stuff. To what you impatiently perceive as delay--how's that for diplomacy!--science looks at the evidence but then then still requires consensus of the various scientific disciplines--that's the wonderful thing about science; it is self-scrutinizing--which we've really only had since 2013ish. But even after that, you need political consensus and compliance and not just within each country, but worldwide. And even after that, you need enough of the populations to understand the science to support the politics to apply the science to work towards fixing the problem. You can read and listen to more on that here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change#:~:text=In 2013%2C a study which,happening and is human-caused. "In 2013, a study which found that out of over 4,000 peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAqR9mLJrcE see also https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm see also https://history.aip.org/climate/summary.htm see also https://history.aip.org/climate/summary.htm "By 2010 impacts long predicted were turning up, sooner than many had expected — acidification of the oceans, unprecedented deadly heat waves, record-breaking floods and droughts, heat-related changes in the survival of sensitive species. An important new field of research developed as some scientists turned from calculating future impacts to showing how global warming was harming people right now…. The scientists who had been predicting for decades that the world would become significantly warmer were now obviously correct. Essentially all scientists along with most science journalists, business leaders, and the world public accepted the consensus. But in the U.S., and to a lesser extent Canada, Australia, and Russia — nations with powerful fossil fuel industries — important political figures continued to scoff at the evidence…. Meanwhile government subsidies for wind, solar power and electric cars had paid off, driving down the costs with remarkable speed. Western Europe began to reduce its fossil-fuel emissions, followed by the United States. World-wide, however, emissions climbed more rapidly than ever, with China and other developing nations taking the lead…."

Still less hazardous to humanity than the endogenous gas of your posts.

science is not snake oil. calling science snake oil is snake oil.

see also https://skepticalscience.com/Does-high-CO2-in-past-contradict-CO2-warming.html

see also https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm "Climate Myth... Climate's changed before Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age.... ...Climate has indeed changed in the past with various impacts depending on the speed and type of that change. Such results have included everything from slow changes to ecosystems over millions of years - through to sudden mass-extinctions. Rapid climate change, of the type we're causing through our enormous carbon dioxide emissions, falls into the very dangerous camp. That's because the faster the change, the harder it is for nature to cope. We are part of nature so if it goes down, it takes us with it. So anyone who dismissively tells you, “the climate has always changed”, either does not know what they are talking about or they are deliberately trying to mislead you."

see also https://skepticalscience.com/ particularly https://skepticalscience.com/66-million.html "A massive new review of ancient atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels and corresponding temperatures lays out a daunting picture of where the Earth’s climate may be headed. The study covers geologic records spanning the past 66 million years, putting present-day concentrations into context with deep time. Among other things, it indicates that the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide consistently reached today’s human-driven levels was 14 million years ago—much longer ago than some existing assessments indicate. It asserts that long-term climate is highly sensitive to greenhouse gas, with cascading effects that may evolve over many millennia. The study was assembled over seven years by a consortium of more than 80 researchers from 16 nations. It appears today in the journal Science."

Oh? Is he pathologically lying about names and faces and dates? I've been pissing people off my whole life because I never remember their special dates. I do the same with names and faces. You are fooling yourself to take one particular aspect of a person and trying to apply that as a measure of that person. Perhaps you do the same in examining yourself. Give it a rest?

He was known for his gaffes way before he was known for his age. You're right that he does put good people around him and we can be certain they are not yes men. I'm certain they let him know if he screws up. What I was most impressed with wasn't just his not losing his train of thought even upon confusing two issues for mere seconds, rather, that he held it together even in that cacophony of a press corp. I was listening on just on TV on my comfy couch where I could concentrate but couldn't pick out the questions he was able to focus on. To all the ageism, which I'd say was warranted in a case of Sen. Feinstein at the end of her life which I wouldn't even have called ageism but reality, to me, even though he's obviously dealing with either arthritis or whatever causes that reduced range of motion, Biden doesn't seem to approach life with the perspective that time is ravaging him. I find that refreshing.

What old dodge? I don't recall <wink> He had periods of better control over it than at other times. So what? That doesn't make him less of who he always is and certainly his stutter, controlled or not, doesn't make him any less of a person. Your issues with his stutter does however lessen you.

Had only you removed your head from Trump b-b-but-t-t, you'd realize that was not a b-b-but trump but an example of what people say during testimony/investigations/etc., (though that their fluffers might not have had any issue with) whether to assure themselves that they don't misspeak or whatever their reason. During the press conference Biden said one of the don't recalls was on a question of his beloved son's death. But-t-t you go right ahead and keep believing that was an actual I don't recall and not a polite GFY.