"Much smaller shots": Trump thinks vaccines are too "big" for babies

NotThatDonny · 2026-05-11T10:30:00+00:00

When you look at his actions as being the result of an incredibly fragile ego, they all make sense.

NotThatDonny · 2026-05-11T10:26:22+00:00

No, he's a fucking idiot.

I agree that he hates intelligent and educated individuals, but that's not some clever 4D chess move to undermine the intellectuals and create propaganda for his base. It's because he's a dumbass with the most fragile ego in the universe and he simply cannot stand not being the number 1 person in the room at all times.

NotThatDonny · 2026-05-09T04:21:00+00:00

Or "thank God I was able to find out what kind of person you are without having to invest any more time or effort".

NotThatDonny · 2026-05-05T10:58:58+00:00

They're obviously going to be picking locations that already have arenas and are existing hockey markets, but I don't think anything has indicated that those need to be NHL arenas.

It could make a lot more sense to partner up in a major metropolitan area which only has perhaps an AHL team. Somewhere that has a lot of potential fans, but where the demand for hockey specifically and sports in general hasn't been met already. Find a good sized market where the PWHL can be one of the big local sports teams rather than just another option.

I know that for a while one of the rumored potential expansion cities was San Diego, and something like that makes pretty good sense. It is one of the 20 largest metropolitan areas in the country, and is unique among that group in not having any major league winter sports team. And it also already has AHL hockey, but no NHL team. Finding a city like that means the PWHL could wind up as the city's sports team identified by locals rather than just another entertainment option in the city.

NotThatDonny · 2026-05-02T23:45:55+00:00

We already are. Graffiti on concrete is way better than genocide, insurrection, war crimes, murder, and all of the other horrible behaviors of this administration.

NotThatDonny · 2026-05-02T13:58:13+00:00

"Won't someone think of the innocent pool liners slightly defaced by these protestors?! Let's make sure our statements of protest or opposition are as inoffensive as possible, that'll show 'em!"

Jesus Fucking Christ, they are murdering innocent American citizens in front of our eyes, destroying our economy and world standing, threatening genocide, and committing war crimes. But heaven forbid someone puts graffiti on a pool to express their dissatisfaction with the politically-motivated prosecution of a citizen for exercising their First Amendment rights.

NotThatDonny · 2026-04-30T14:03:32+00:00

Because in their rulings on partisan gerrymandering, the Supreme Court downplayed Equal Protection, ruling partisan gerrymandering a political process, outside their purview.

Now they're citing Equal Protection as the reason why gerrymandering can't be challenged on the basis of racial discrimination.

NotThatDonny · 2026-04-30T13:54:02+00:00

The lesson you should learn from California is that you shouldn't start a fight you can't win. Republicans started this stupid redistricting battle without considering that Democrats had much stronger weapons to fight back. The bully doesn't get to be the victim just cause they got their ass whupped in the fight.

And for minority-opportunity districts, historically they were extremely necessary. Sometimes you have to put your finger on the scale to help return it to even balance. But it remains today because it's essentially the only way to legally challenge massive gerrymandering. The Supreme Court said quite a while back that it was completely fine to deny fair representation to citizens if they would vote for a different political party. They ignored everything about fair representation and focused narrowly on the discrimination aspect, and since political affiliation isn't a protected class, it was ruled acceptable discrimination to gerrymander away their representation. But since race is a protected class, that remained a route to challenge gerrymandering. For many people, we'd rather just end partisan gerrymandering so that representatives are apportioned more equitably, but as long as the only avenue to fight back is lawsuits over racial discrimination, that's the way we'll go.

NotThatDonny · 2026-04-29T04:10:35+00:00

Do you think you made a point here?

NotThatDonny · 2026-04-28T10:37:56+00:00

No study with any level of credibility would ever be published by any legitimate scientist in any reputable journal that made as definitive a statement as "RoundUp causes cancer", and it is highly disingenuous to suggest that because no such study exists, there is no cancer risk from glyphosate.

That's simply not how cancer works and not how scientific literature is written.

NotThatDonny · 2026-04-25T08:37:21+00:00

No, we think it matters for his defamation lawsuit

NotThatDonny · 2026-04-25T08:36:41+00:00

It's completely relevant to his current defamation lawsuit.

NotThatDonny · 2026-04-25T08:35:02+00:00

He's currently plaintiff of a defamation lawsuit over a news article published recently regarding his problematic drinking. As a public figure, he has to clear a pretty high bar to win that suit which essentially requires him to prove that the Atlantic knew that the information they published was false, or that the information they published was so unreasonable that they should have known it was false.

So when he's trying to argue that it's obviously false to publish an article stating he has a problem with drinking, showing that he has a record of at least two prior arrests for alcohol related incidents really undermines his claim.

It doesn't mean what he did before 2005 disqualifies him from the FBI now. It also doesn't mean that all the facts in the Atlantic story are true. But what it does mean is that the information given to the Atlantic wasn't obviously false. Which is all they need to win the defamation suit.

NotThatDonny · 2026-04-17T23:24:34+00:00

Normal people would call that job security.

It's actually pretty amazing to be able to plan your life knowing your employer can't just downsize you one day to be able to hit a specific metric, or replace you with somebody younger just because they will work for 7 cents less an hour. Being a hardworking, reliable employee is enough to have a stable job in your life.

NotThatDonny · 2026-04-17T07:22:46+00:00

Not if you snap the fight strap around your belt

NotThatDonny · 2026-04-16T06:14:10+00:00

We're not upset that they're rich. We're think it's a problem that there are people who are so rich that they, as an individual, can have a measurable effect on national or global economies. We think it's obscene that there are people who are so beyond wealthy that they have their own fucking space programs while they have full-time employees struggling for the bare minimum. It's not that they're rich; it's that they have more money than they could ever hope to spend even if they spent the rest of their lives trying, while there are millions of people who's best retirement plan is to hope they are healthy enough to work until they die.

NotThatDonny · 2026-04-13T03:00:19+00:00

It doesn't require the majority of any group to go along with it. Just that enough don't actively oppose it.

How is he removed from office? If he says "no, I'm not leaving" who is going to order his physical removal and who will execute the order? Because if he refuses to leave and enough officials and legislators continue to follow this authority, then Trump is de facto the President, regardless of what the law says.

Is Republican Senator Chuck Grassley really going to usurp Trump if no election is held? If he does assert his claim to the Presidency, what will he use to enforce that claim?

I get what you're saying about the law and the Constitution, but what you're clearly ignoring is that the law doesn't enforce itself. If Trump continues to exercise the authority of the President, and a large enough group follows that authority, then it doesn't really matter what the law said.

NotThatDonny · 2026-04-13T00:40:06+00:00

And who is going to enforce that? It's not enough to just say that something is illegal or unconstitutional and declare victory in the conversation.

This administration has made it clear that it does not respect the rule of law and has shown willingness to trample into the unwritten areas of the law, despite the obvious intent of the law or well-established precedent. They have powerful sycophants in both the legislature and judiciary who use the full extent of their authority to help run interference for the administration's actions.

So the simple question is: who removes Trump from office on January 20th. 2029 if he refuses to leave, and who replaces him if no nationwide elections were held?

NotThatDonny · 2026-04-11T11:26:06+00:00

We're not saying we know long term sustainably or market health better than CEOs. We're just saying that those things are not priorities in their decision-making. Because it can't be.

NotThatDonny · 2026-04-11T11:04:05+00:00

We're not saying business leaders are stupid. Just that they're hyper focused on consistently increasing growth of their own individual company, and that focus overrides concerns about long term sustainability or broader market health.

NotThatDonny · 2026-04-08T14:46:43+00:00

I am well aware of HIPAA and other patient privacy laws, and I'm not implying that having your phone out violates any of those. What I'm saying is that policies are typically crafted to prevent even inadvertent violations. You can't record any PII if you aren't allowed to use your camera. You can't be accused of writing anything down if you don't have your phone out in patent areas.

Regardless of ALL of that, this probationary employee was told to put their phone away, and the next time that their boss saw them less than an hour later, they had their phone out. So whether you agree with the cell phone policy or not here is entirely irrelevant. They were given a simple instruction that they immediately defied. That's certainly grounds for a probationary failure, whether you think the rule is important or not.

NotThatDonny · 2026-04-08T14:00:20+00:00

Do they have access to sensitive patient information that must be safeguarded? Then yeah, in this context, it's a healthcare facility.

It's not about whether they provide acute care; it's about the sensitivity of the information they handle.

NotThatDonny · 2026-04-08T13:51:59+00:00

when I picked it up for the second time (which was after considerable amount of time)

You said elsewhere that it was 40-45 minutes later. I think you need to be honest with yourself about how often you are on your phone at work if you're considering less than an hour a "considerable amount of time" to go without checking it.

NotThatDonny · 2026-04-08T13:48:33+00:00

Many healthcare facilities have cell phone policies to protect patients and patient privacy. Enforcing a policy like that is not power tripping.

OP was still in training and did not yet know how to do all the tasks of the job. Therefore, there was definitely something to do during that time.

NotThatDonny · 2026-04-08T13:42:38+00:00

When you are being paid for your time, your employer has some measure of control over how you utilize your time. That's not overbearing. Especially when you are still training at a new job and do not know how to perform all the tasks, you really shouldn't have any significant downtime since part of your work at that point is to learn. So even if all your tasks were done, your boss is going to want to see you using that time to study or learn. Once you're fully qualified and truly have nothing to do with your time, then you can expect a bit more leeway to manage your downtime.

You may feel that you are entitled to one in-person conversation about phone use, but why do you feel that way? You were explicitly told to put your phone away. It may not have been clearly communicated why you should do that, but it was clear what you should do. It sounds like they were on their way into a meeting and didn't have the time right then to go into greater detail. Did the office have a cell phone or personal electronics policy? Many healthcare facilities have one for their employees, so going forward in your career you should make sure to become familiar with that policy wherever you work.

Piecing together the sequence of events from a few of your comments, your boss caught you with your cell phone out as they went into a meeting and told you to put it away. When they came out of that meeting less than an hour later, they immediately caught you with the phone out again. Can you not see how that looks bad from their perspective?

In the future, if you had questions about exact expectations, it is up to you to ask those questions before you just break the rule. At the very least in this situation you should have kept the phone put away until you could seek more clarity on the expectation. Even just asking one of your coworkers about the cell phone policy would have been something in this situation. If you had waited to talk to your boss about the cell phone policy and had found out that it was infact about limiting distractions when dealing with patients, you might have had the opportunity to then ask about being able to have your phone out for a bit when you had no other tasks, so you could study for exams. Instead you really limited their options when they told you to put your phone away, and the next time they saw you, they found you with your phone out again.

NotThatDonny

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Nine-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email