61

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 08, 2025, 04:44:51 PM »

But there's a difference between Zelensky using humour in his speeches - which many politicians do anyway (often with...mixed results) and him launching a new comedy show or stand up tour. If he did those things I suspect there would be a feeling of "shouldn't you be running the country?"

I bet Zelensky could launch a new comedy show or stand up tour as he was president. It's hard to prove that he's not running the country, and everything is arguably delegable. His supporters would just argue that he's providing important social commentary in his role of communicator, and justify it completely. After all, a comedic social communicator is who they wanted as president.

More directly, if as Ukrainian President Zelensky went on stage and did the bit where he plays the piano with his testicles again, no one would bat an eye. He would lose no popularity, simply because that is the person they voted for. They would clap and call it hilarious.

62

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 08, 2025, 04:21:06 PM »

Up to a point. Zelensky was a comedian before he went in to politics. I don't think the people of Ukraine elected him and then expected him to go on another standup tour or launch a new TV comedy series. Whatever background someone has, you elect someone to run the country, not to enrich themselves.

Actually Zelensky proves that the rules of traditional politics don't apply to stars. There is a video segment of Zelensky playing the piano with his testicles in front of an audience. If a traditional politician went on stage and did it, or if previously filmed segment was uncovered and publicized as they were campaigning, this would be campaign ending for them. For a traditional politician a video of them pants down in front of a piano would be professionally embarrassing and they would have to resign or get rejected by their party. Zelensky got away with it because he was a media and comedic star, and his antics even gained him popularity.

Zelensky may not be using humor anymore in his role as president, but if he had continued with it he would assuredly get away with a lot.

63

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 08, 2025, 03:34:58 AM »

No politician should

Again, this is the issue. He's not a traditional politician, so he doesn't play by those rules. He is a television star and world famous comedic personality whose running theme is that he runs businesses and makes money, so he can get rich off of his crypto business and meme coins if he wants to.

You may as well argue that if Elvis were elected President that he shouldn't continue to sing in concerts, but those arguments will obviously not go far in the realm of public opinion if President Elvis Presley wanted to lead in a concert. Your social expectations of a traditional president would mean nothing, and they mean nothing here with Trump.

64

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 07, 2025, 07:07:22 PM »

The problem with the criticism and why it goes nowhere is because Trump has a background as a reality television comedian star, and therefore it is water off the duck's back. He has been trolling you for years, this entire time. This is why Trump can do and say things that are career ending for traditional politicians, and even get more popular for it. Your attacks are powerless against this.

65

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 05, 2025, 05:30:36 PM »

Troops would mean we are now an active military target. Ie. The US/EUgoes to war with Russia.  A step we probably should have taken but it could have led to WW3.

Russia stated that they wouldn't be in Ukraine if Ukraine was in NATO, so Ukraine having actual allies would have solved the problem without WW3. Russia already has NATO allies which share its border, and this would have been another one. Unfortunately NATO members did not care enough about Ukraine to be its ally, leaving them to the slaughter as they stood around watching and virtue signaling in limited support. The problem with Ukraine was its lack of allies.

As for the streets:
You are correct: Per Axel.  Tanks don't have axels so the weight is distributed across the whole tread.  But that being said, it's still 50% over the gross weight limit.

Gross vehicle weight: 80,000 pounds
Weight on any one axle: 20,000 pounds
Weight on any two consecutive axles less than 10 feet apart: 34,000 pounds

It also says in the link in the text below that section that if the vehicle weighs more to contact them for a permit:

"Any vehicles exceeding these restrictions require an oversize/overweight vehicle permit to travel within the District of Columbia."

So it doesn't appear to be a hard limit.

66

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Physicist Brian Cox on Universal Acceleration

« on: May 05, 2025, 03:26:33 PM »

Direct experiments on the earth's surface tell us that the earth is accelerating upwards.

The OP and the relevant wiki articles all frequently and approvingly refer to the Equivalence Principle when discussing UA, but the EP states that acceleration of the Earth and gravitational acceleration are experimentally indistinguishable. How then can experiments on the Earth’s surface tell us that it’s the Earth physically accelerating upwards, not gravity pulling us towards Earth?

The OP has some explaining to do before rubbishing general relativity.

The problem is that you read a sentence about gravity from physicists and think that it's talking about Newtonian Gravity because that is the topic in dispute here. Those the same physicists also say that General Relativity succeeded Newtonian Gravity long ago. The gravity they are talking about is General Relativity. They are saying that upwards acceleration of the earth's surface and the General Relativity theory of gravity are experimentally indistinguishable in laboratory experiments. You will also find that those sentences of indistinguishability appear in articles about the history and advantages of Einsteinian gravity, giving additional context to which gravity it is talking about.

Newtonian Gravity where things fall "down" has a litany of problems, such as not predicting the redshifting of light when pointed at a ceiling, as mentioned above.

Another problem is that Newtonian Gravity actually predicts that objects with twice the mass will fall twice as fast, and this fixed with ad-hoc bandaid mechanisms. A Space.com article Relativity: The Thought Experiments Behind Einstein's Theory by astrophysicist Paul Sutter explains that under a plain interpretation of how Newtonian Gravity pulls on objects, a body with twice the mass of another should fall faster. Newtonian Gravity requires a separation of inertial and gravitational mass and their equivalence for bodies to fall equally. It is suggested in this article that this is an ad-hoc mechanism to explain physical phenomena.

“ Einstein's first insight into the nature of gravity was to put a new twist on an old idea. In Isaac Newton's original mathematical description of gravity ("OG"?), there's an odd coincidence when it comes to the concept of "mass." In one famous equation, F = ma, mass is your inertia — how much oomph it takes to shove you along. In Newton's other equation on gravity, mass is more like gravitational charge — the level of attraction you might feel toward the Earth, for example.

Objects with twice the mass feel twice the attraction toward the Earth, and should therefore fall twice as quickly. But years back, Galileo Galilei had conclusively shown that they don't: Neglecting air resistance, all objects fall at the same rate regardless of their mass.

Thus for Newton's theory to work, inertial mass had to be the same as gravitational mass, but only by sheer coincidence: there was no reason for this equality to hold. For an object with twice the mass, the Earth may pull on it twice as strongly, but this is perfectly canceled out by the fact that it's now twice as hard to get the object moving. Inertial and gravitational masses move in perfect lockstep.

This odd correspondence had long been a puzzle in gravitational circles, but in 1907, Einstein took it one step further. The physicist imagined what would happen if you were to fall from a great height. Again neglecting air resistance, your inertial and gravitational masses would cancel, making you feel perfectly weightless, as if there were no gravity at all. But zero-gravity environments are precisely the playground of Special Relativity, the theory he had cooked up just a couple years prior that wove our conceptions of space and time into the unified fabric of spacetime.

To Einstein, this was a major clue. Lurking in the shadows of gravity was his precious special relativity and the essential concept of space-time, and what made that realization possible was the elevation of the equivalence between inertial and gravitational masses into a fundamental principle, rather than the awkward afterthought it had been. ”

As mentioned above, it is a sheer coincidence that they are equal. For example, if the gravity field of the earth were stronger it would increase the 'gravitational mass' of the object. It would no longer match the inertial resistance of an object. It is incredible that the earth is a special planet where the gravity field exactly matches what is necessary to cause this weightless effect.

This weightless effect where bodies of differing masses fall together is so absurd that Einstein recognized it for what it is, the upwards acceleration of the Earth's surface. In another video about bodies which fall together, Brian Cox explains:

"The reason, why the bowling ball and the feather, fall together is because they are not falling! They are standing still! There is no force acting on them at all! He (Einstein) reasoned, that if you couldn't see the background, the'd be no way of knowing, that the ball and and the feathers are being accelerated towards the Earth - so he concluded ... they weren't"

Brian Cox seems to be in love with this idea of the earth accelerating upwards, that he can't help but bring it up again and again and again, throwing this absurdity in our face and celebrating how weird physics is that it is this way.

67

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 05, 2025, 12:34:10 AM »

Might makes right, does it?  Well, never underestimate the “weaker” country.  Ukraine has been doing a pretty good job of holding its own against Russia for three years longer than anyone, especially Putin, expected.

This is incorrect, they did not hold their own. I don't think you understand the meaning of "holding its own".

That remains to be seen. Ukraine's strength, in part, comes from soft power - something Russia sorely lacks. It has allies, and some of them haven't even betrayed it out of cowardice. Making a reliable comparison between the two will likely not be possible for a few decades... unless Russia suddenly collapses on itself.

Those are clients, not allies. Allies in a military alliance help each other directly in battle when they are attacked, an example being the NATO military alliance. Over the past several years Ukraine was begging for direct participation from western powers, but was refused at every turn. Only money and equipment were provided, skirting around the alliance issue.

Ukraine was despicably given a wad of cash and was told to sacrifice its people to fight a war for others, the benefactor countries being unwilling to fight themselves. Because of this, we now have an entire generation of Ukrainian men which have been nearly erased and Ukrainian families in untold suffering, all while the benefactor countries remain unharmed and safe, fat and happy.

This is terrible and unjust, to say the least. Luckily for the people of Ukraine Trump was willing to step up once he became president and halt the US military aid to the mercenary government. If you want a war fought you should do it yourself, not send some third world backwater country to fight your battles and die for you.

You... You think rubber pads will help against weight?  Really?
You do know DC is literally built on swamp land, yes?
Also, max weight limit for a city streets in the DC area is 20,000 lbs.
And M1 Abrams tank weights 125,000 lbs.  So you really think rolling a bunch of somethings 6 times the maximum weight is gonna be ok so long as you use rubber pads?  Really?

The 20,000 pound figure is the weight on one vehicle axle. See in that link "Weight on any one axle: 20,000 pounds". The weight of a tank is distributed over a wide area, allowing them to roam city streets with proper treads.

Tanks have paraded Washington DC a number of times, so I don't know why you guys are pretending that this is anything new.

68

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Physicist Brian Cox on Universal Acceleration

« on: May 05, 2025, 12:02:55 AM »

That video actually goes through the evidence and affirms that the physical reality is that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards.

lol. He literally doesn’t use the word physical or physically once. He explains quite well how the acceleration is not physical.

Actually, he does say that the upwards acceleration manifests as physical phenomena. At around the 5:50 mark he explains:

this means when the light travels
up its frequency reduces and in light
when the frequency reduces it goes
towards red end of the Spectrum in other
words we get a red shift due to gravity
this is something that Newton did not
predict so if Einstein is indeed right
we should see gravitational red shift
and we saw it you can Google pound rebka
experiment for more details

Light shifts red, indicating that the ceiling of the building is accelerating away. The Newtonian theory of bodies falling "down" does not predict this. It is using the same mechanism of a policeman's radar gun which uses the red or blue shift of light to determine acceleration. When cars are accelerating away from the policeman, the light redshifts. In this experiment the doppler shift is coined as "gravitational redshift", and in the opposite direction towards the ground light blueshifts as the earth accelerates into it, all expected physical effects on an upwardly accelerating surface. This is one of many experiments which tells us that the earth is accelerating upwards.

Direct experiments on the earth's surface tell us that the earth is accelerating upwards. Bending space and physics in unseen dimensions are used to explain this as an illusion of a metaphysical realm where the earth is not exploding apart from itself. The evidence itself of the surface's upward acceleration is undeniable as far as experimentation is concerned, and "bending space" is the resulting cope mechanism.

Upwards acceleration of the earth's surface doesn't work if the Earth is a ball, so unseen realms of existence are invented where mechanics are occurring beyond our perception.

Also not true.

Have you seen the earth's surface accelerating upwards through bending space? If not, then it is unseen. You are talking about unseen physics in unseen realms, which is nonsense to say the least.

The reason why we always just see Brian Cox or others merely explaining what it is, but we never see direct defense of the upward acceleration of the earth's surface through space time, is because it is ridiculous beyond words

As a wise man once said (see my sig)
“Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

That's not the only part of the argument. The other part is that there is a lack of evidence that the earth's surface is accelerating upwards through space time or bending space.

You continue to conflate “I don’t understand this” with “this is not possible”. And curiously you do so while cherry picking parts of mainstream science where it suits your agenda. There’s no crime in being ignorant, but it’s a little silly to base a whole worldview on that ignorance.

Actually this thread shows that mainstream science is cherry picking what to accept. It can't accept an upwardly accelerating earth, so here you are mumbling on their behalf about alternate dimensions that you can't show us.

69

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 04, 2025, 02:20:28 AM »

Look I know you think it's ok for a President to ignore the constitution, but not everyone else does.

Also, this isn't a 'we'll get it back at this negotiation" it's 'we won't let you keep it forever.'

It appears that disagreement over Crimea is currently holding up negotiations:

https://www.nbcnews.com/world/russia/why-crimea-important-russia-ukraine-negotiations-rcna203652

Crimea is at the crux of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. Here's why it's important.

"Though a deal was signed Wednesday giving the United States access to some of Ukraine’s critical minerals, large disagreements between these parties and Russia continue to stymie the wider peace talks.

Crimea is the crux.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has rejected outright acknowledging Moscow’s control over it, while Russian President Vladimir Putin has insisted the peninsula is his."

Why is it unreasonable for Ukraine to want to keep Crimea, along with the rest of the territories that Russia illegally invaded/occupied/annexed?

Ukraine is the weaker country and beggars can't be choosers.

City streets aren't built to endure tanks.

They have figured that one out. Rubber pads are put on the treads for city streets.

70

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Physicist Brian Cox on Universal Acceleration

« on: May 04, 2025, 12:59:34 AM »

That video actually goes through the evidence and affirms that the physical reality is that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards. Upwards acceleration of the earth's surface doesn't work if the Earth is a ball, so unseen realms of existence are invented where mechanics are occurring beyond our perception. All of the curved space metaphysics are an effort to explain the results of laboratory experiments which say that the surface is accelerating, upwards under a round earth mindset.

The reason why we always just see Brian Cox or others merely explaining what it is, but we never see direct defense of the upward acceleration of the earth's surface through space time, is because it is ridiculous beyond words and practically indefensible. These unseen realms exist because they must exist. The wider proofs for relativity, such as the relativity solar system fix to the retrograde motion of Mercury, are hardly sufficient to tell us that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards in an unseen realm, and the Mercury proof has been alleged to be tweaked to get that result.

This issue with gravity is enough on its own to settle the matter for me and overshadows everything else. If you believe in the truth to the motion of bodies, then you must believe in Flat Earth. If you are willing to believe in weird metaphysics in unseen realms where things can appear to be moving but are not moving, then you can believe in the Round Earth. Any other topic diversions and wuddabouts will leave open the issue that there is practically no evidence for the absurd notion that the earth's surface is accelerating upwards through space time. We are expected to believe in an absurdity to the concept of motion, on blind faith alone.

71

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 02, 2025, 02:52:58 PM »

Also
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkx3jgyvyzo

"I can solve it very easily... Soong as both sides agree to whatever I say."

From that article:

Trump suggested this week that Ukraine might be willing to cede Crimea - which Russia invaded in 2014 - in order to reach a truce settlement.

But Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky had earlier implied that he would be unable to accept Russian control of the peninsula, citing the Ukrainian constitution.

It appears that the problem has been identified. Zelensky appears to think that getting back Crimea is on the table. This is a clever negotiation point from Trump, since it shows that Zelensky is being unreasonable in the effort on his side to end this.

Waltz to leave his post.
Strange as he didn’t do anything wrong.
ThisIsFine.jpg

Actually I said that Pete Hegseth didn't do anything wrong. I said that Waltz messed up by allowing a disreputed liberal journalist into the conversation, unclassified or otherwise. Not every unclassified conversation needs the presence of a liar who is known to twist words and fabricate situations to get a story.

From my previous comment:

Yes, it is embarrassing to be associated with a liar, and it is embarrassing that your liar contact abused his privilege of association by twisting the words and situation of your Secretary of Defense. Waltz's name is currently being dragged through the mud within the Trump admin community, and he might not be working for the Trump Whitehouse through the year.

I called this.  Hegseth is in, and Waltz is out. Hegseth remains as Defense Secretary, while Waltz will no longer be working as directly for the Trump Whitehouse in the role as National Security Advisor and will now be "Ambassador to the United Nations".

72

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 01, 2025, 03:44:43 PM »

Wow, deceptive. I literally posted prices for three different fuel types in the same sentence:

According to Gas Buddy, Texas is now down to $1.97 a gallon for E85 type fuel in Waxahachie, TX , and $1.99 a gallon for UNL88 type fuel in Greenville, TX, with the lowest Regular type at $2.14 in Cleveland, TX.

AATW chose to cut out everything except for E85, which is a fuel that over 20 million US vehicles and several Ford F150 models can use, pretending that I was only talking about a certain obscure cheap kind of fuel. In the same sentence it says that UNL88 is $1.99, which a type of fuel that is 85% gasoline and which all gasoline cars after 2001 can use. I also cited the Regular price, which older vehicles can use.

Worse yet, AATW accused me of selectively picking data, an accusation that is ironic, given their own selective quoting of my statement. This is not just misleading; it's outright deceitful.

This kind of selective misrepresentation is similar to how the BBC mischaracterized Trump's speech by ignoring critical context, such as his mention of three states just two minutes earlier. It seems AATW is following in similar footsteps. If you are going to critique my argument, at least do so honestly. Don't manipulate what I said to fit your narrative.

73

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 30, 2025, 10:24:39 PM »

In the video of his statement Trump says that gas "hit" 1.98 in a "couple" of states[/url]. He does not say "a lot of states", so this quote they gave us which allegedly comes from Trump is a lie as well.

Nope.

This is the video where he says it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn1Fr4dtRZU

Very clearly says "a lot of states", so please retract that accusation.

Even this version of the claim is deceptively edited. Here is the full video:

34:48
Your energy your car your gasoline and they have three states this week a
couple of days ago that were $1.98 a gallon So gasoline prices are down by
a lot Energy prices are down Mortgage

36:15
prices down Every price has gone down What am I going to do i mean think of it Gasoline was almost $4 not so long ago. And now Mike we just hit 1.98 in a lot of states Think of it

Less than two minutes beforehand he says it is in "three states". The BBC clearly wanted to do some creative editing and remove that part. Obscuring this part and only showing the later sentence and pretending that he is talking about a majority of 50 states makes it a lie. The journalists at the BBC are liars and have no journalistic integrity.

As usual, the opposite is true. If someone promises to bring down the price of something and the average price goes up then they haven't kept that promise. Even if the price at one or even a handful of gas stations is as low as he claims, it's a dishonest representation to take the minimum price you can find and use that as evidence that you kept your promise when the average has gone up.

Replace gasoline with womens purses in your argument and you will see how poor that argument is. Gas is often sold at a premium with psychological tactics at a central shopping or food convenience area, strategic waypoints, or more commonly simply because it's sold in middle or upper class areas at a price calculated to what the market will bear and is willing to psychologically pay. The goal of companies is to sell at the highest possible price. Therefore the lowest prices of gasoline tells us more about the the cheapest viable product and cuts out market factors and companies trying to capitalize on gasoline.

According to Gas Buddy, Texas is now down to $1.97 a gallon for E85 type fuel in Waxahachie, TX , and $1.99 a gallon for UNL88 type fuel in Greenville, TX, with the lowest Regular type at $2.14 in Cleveland, TX.



From the maps we can see that the lowest costs are concentrated on the east side of Texas.  These are prices around what Trump claimed. Gas is cheap in multiple cities in Texas on the east side, yet is more expensive in other Texas cities.

In the California coastal cities the price of gas is dollars more per gallon than the rest of the country, but we know that gas is "really" at the price of the states where it is lowest, specifically if we are trying to use the number as a gauge of the health of the economy as a whole and not the complex markets of rich Californians. Minimum gas prices affects transportation, industry, and a whole host of fields which capitalize on wholesale fuel. Maximum and average gas prices, not necessarily so.

Trump is using gasoline as a national indicator of health, and so the lowest prices in the country should be used. Since Trump has additionally pointed out that this is occurring in three different states it also strengthens the argument that this number is not a localized phenomenon and represents the optimized minimum viable product.

74

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 30, 2025, 07:29:20 PM »

Here is an article from April 28th, 2025:

https://www.newschannel6now.com/2025/04/28/gasbuddy-report-shows-prices-are-lower-than-previous-months-despite-high-prices/

According to GasBuddy price reports, the cheapest station in Texas was priced at $1.99/g yesterday

This claim that prices aren't as low as Trump says they are is now pretty much debonked. There is no good authoritative resource on historical retail prices and every outlet is giving out different numbers based on random research.

75

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 30, 2025, 06:44:45 PM »

Here is Politifact's fact check on this:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2025/apr/24/donald-trump/donald-trump-states-gas-prices-gallon/

But no state has had an average gasoline price close to $1.98 per gallon in recent weeks. The lowest per-gallon price we could find of all U.S. gas stations was $2.11 at one station

"I see that we had a couple of states where gasoline was at $1.98 a gallon," Trump said. "Nobody thought they'd see that for years maybe. And that's a big thing. And we opened up our wells, we opened up our drilling."

But no state has had an average gasoline price close to $1.98 per gallon in recent weeks. The lowest per-gallon price we could find of all U.S. gas stations was $2.11 at one station

From this, we see:

- The correct quote is actually  that it hit a low number in "couple of states", not "a lot of states". BBC shamelessly lied about the quote

- Like other outlets, Politifact brings up average gasoline price to obfuscate the truth, when the quote is clearly talking about minimums

- We see another totally different "lowest" price of $2.11, which is different from the lowest price from the AOL and BBC articles. Politicfact is ridiculously arguing about a difference of 13 cents, based on what "we could find".

76

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 30, 2025, 06:18:35 PM »

It would be helpful if you didn't repost the words of retarts and liars. From your link:

On 29 April, the average price for a gallon of "regular" gas - or petrol - across the US was $3.16 (£2.36), according to data from the American Automobile Association (AAA).

That is slightly up from the $3.125 (£2.33) recorded by the AAA on the day Trump entered the White House.

In his speech, he added that gas prices had "just hit $1.98 in a lot of states".

This is a claim he has made several times but we cannot find evidence of prices this low.

As of 29 April, no state had an average gas price lower than $2.67 (£1.99), according to the AAA.

If is is noted that gas hit $1.98 in some areas, why would you post a national or state average as your rebuttal? Do you not understand the difference? The difference in the price of goods in different parts of the US can be enormous. In the video of his statement Trump says that gas "hit" 1.98 in a "couple" of states. He does not say "a lot of states", so this quote they gave us which allegedly comes from Trump is a lie as well. The limitation of hitting a low price point in a couple of states shows fairly clearly that he is talking about the minimum, yet BBC Verify wanted to lie about it.

Whether this leftist outlet can find that data or not, posting the average price to its audience as a form of evidence is intellectually dishonest. These people clearly do not understand simple mathematical concepts enough to tell us anything about the price of gas, yet they represent themselves to the public as authorities and "fact checkers".

However, considering that we learn about averages in primary school, the problem isn't likely to be ignorance here. These people lied about the quote and chose to use the average price of gas to trick a gullible public who might not look into it much. They are deceitful people who are manipulating their "fact checks" in favor of the liberal narrative.

Can you find even 1 gas station that had it anywhere close to that price?  Because I question how Trump did.

Gas hit 2.25 yesterday in Huston, Texas, which is one of the largest cities in the US. You are arguing about a quarter. There is a good chance that it hit 1.98 somewhere in America in the last few weeks when he made the statement on sometime around the 18th.

Houston Gas Prices - https://www.khou.com/gasprices



The AOL/CNN article I linked above in this post states 2.19, which is even closer: "The lowest price GasBuddy found on Wednesday was $2.19 per gallon at a station in Texas."

Trump is right, the cost of gas is low, and he is likely correct that it hit 1.98 somewhere this month. BBC is talking about averages when Trump is talking about minimums. BBC lied about the Trump quote about "a lot of states" when he said it "hit" 1.98 in a "couple of states". By extension, the other liberal media articles lie about this when they make the same argument which uses averages. Multiple liberal media outlets are joint in lying about this, and we consistently see the content of these fiends reposted here as fact.

77

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 30, 2025, 03:12:22 PM »

It would be helpful if you didn't repost the words of retarts and liars. From your link:

On 29 April, the average price for a gallon of "regular" gas - or petrol - across the US was $3.16 (£2.36), according to data from the American Automobile Association (AAA).

That is slightly up from the $3.125 (£2.33) recorded by the AAA on the day Trump entered the White House.

In his speech, he added that gas prices had "just hit $1.98 in a lot of states".

This is a claim he has made several times but we cannot find evidence of prices this low.

As of 29 April, no state had an average gas price lower than $2.67 (£1.99), according to the AAA.

If is is noted that gas hit $1.98 in some areas, why would you post a national or state average as your rebuttal? Do you not understand the difference? The difference in the price of goods in different parts of the US can be enormous. In the video of his statement Trump says that gas "hit" 1.98 in a "couple" of states. He does not say "a lot of states", so this quote they gave us which allegedly comes from Trump is a lie as well. The limitation of hitting a low price point in a couple of states shows fairly clearly that he is talking about the minimum, yet BBC Verify wanted to lie about it.

Whether this leftist outlet can find that data or not, posting the average price to its audience as a form of evidence is intellectually dishonest. These people clearly do not understand simple mathematical concepts enough to tell us anything about the price of gas, yet they represent themselves to the public as authorities and "fact checkers".

However, considering that we learn about averages in primary school, the problem isn't likely to be ignorance here. These people lied about the quote and chose to use the average price of gas to trick a gullible public who might not look into it much. They are deceitful people who are manipulating their "fact checks" in favor of the liberal narrative.

78

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Physicist Brian Cox on Universal Acceleration

« on: April 30, 2025, 12:44:01 AM »

Brian Cox appears to be enamored with the idea. During the same lecture on his history of gravity portion, Brian Cox explains that the earth is accelerating upwards:

https://twitter.com/ThatGuyM77/status/1763294353496137999

79

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 29, 2025, 03:52:10 AM »

How was I supporting it in that post? I was neither supporting nor condemning it. I was just stating as a fact that society is still trying to figure out the trans issue and what to do with it
...
I stand by my quote - I mean, it isn't even an opinion. It's just a fact that migration has been a good thing
...
Again, that's not an opinion it's just biology. I didn't express an opinion on abortion in that post, I was responding to the assertion that a clump of cells in the very early stages of development is a "human life who wants to live". It doesn't have a brain, how can it "want" anything?

These are all textbook leftist woke talking points, no matter how much you try to spin them as neutral facts or just biology. Claiming that loss of jobs to mass migration is good, reducing the trans issue to some vague societal confusion, and throwing out the tired "clump of cells" argument on abortion are straight from the woke playbook. Whether you admit it or not, you're parroting woke ideology.

Your point that you are not on the far left is subtle, but irrelevant. You are clearly a woke lefty.

It interesting how much that lot care about unborn babies.
And how little they care about actual babies, children or adults who are vulnerable.

And here you are virtue signaling, a classic hallmark of a woke leftist. Your argument that you are not on Team Woke fails hard.

You went full cliche with the virtue signaling about caring for the "vulnerable." This is typical woke deflection. Pretend to care about children and adults while dismissing humans in the womb as irrelevant. It is a tired, hypocritical tactic, and it doesn't make your denial of being woke any less laughable.

80

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 28, 2025, 07:55:36 PM »

Oh yes, lets trust the people who deported her to tell the truth.  I'm sure they have aboslutely no reason to lie.  Nope.  That's why they skipped the formalities of a judicial hearing and jumped right into it.


Seriously Tom... believing the official story?  Really?  Gonna go support NASA's moon mission now?

It also says this in the article you linked:

"The parents made the decision to take the child with them to Honduras. It is common that parents want to be removed with their children," said Tricia McLaughlin, DHS' assistant secretary for public affairs.

Are you claiming that the parents didn't want to take their child with them to Honduras? That would be an odd claim. Most parents in that situation would want to take their children with them. If the parents take their children with them then the children don't need to go through an official ejection process. Patents are legal guardians and make legal decisions on behalf of their children, which in this case was to go to Honduras with them.

If in an unlikely situation that the parents insisted that their US Citizen children stay in the United States, the government would probably send them to foster care if alternative family arrangements couldn't be found. The government can't deport a US Citizen to a country where they have no legal status.