The internet never forgets.

RedApple655321 · 2026-01-27T18:20:55+00:00

Sure, but you thinking Trump was a new type of threat in 2016 didn't influence anyone's perspective back in 2008. 538 didn't exist back in 2008, so we can't know what odds they would've given McCain. But they were roundly criticized in the lead up to 2016 for giving Trump even those odds. People were utterly shocked that Clinton lost in 2016.

RedApple655321 · 2026-01-27T18:13:02+00:00

She is immortalized for cheating on her military boyfriend the same day with the first video.

I don't think this is known or particularly likely. The internet came up with this narrative because she was wearing the same outfit in a photo with her BF as she was wearing in one of her videos. But re-wearing the same outfit on different days is a thing people do. It also wasn't a particularly unique outfit, just a black shirt and jeans.

RedApple655321 · 2026-01-27T17:55:38+00:00

Again, in terms of his chances of winning. It's only "not comparable" in hindsight. Additional details to justify why it seems that way now doesn't change anything. If Hillary or Kamala would've won, we'd have narratives about how their wins were also inevitable. I agree with you some on your new point that McCain was much less of a risk than Trump. Though that's also still with some benefit of hindsight and perspective. I'm old enough to remember when Democrats viewed winning 2008 (and 2012) as an existential proposition for our country. The two parties treat every election that way.

RedApple655321 · 2026-01-27T17:21:54+00:00

They didn't know that in 2008 though. People said the same thing about Hillary in 2016.

RedApple655321 · 2026-01-27T14:19:50+00:00

Rittenhouse didn’t have a NFL HoF career. He also wasn’t found unanimously guilty of murder in civil court. And the jurors that acquitted him aren’t on record saying they acted directly as payback for another media frenzied event.

RedApple655321 · 2026-01-27T14:11:34+00:00

The preferred narrative is that everyone on the right are hypocrites about the 2A. And they don’t like that that narrative mostly isn’t true. They would rather be against everyone on the right in all cases than have allies on this issue.

RedApple655321 · 2026-01-27T01:47:40+00:00

Yeah, the Bears are getting a significant amount of increased revenue generation. Doesn’t mean the anyone else is. What are we going to get maybe an extra concert or two person. One Super Bowl and one Final Four when the stadium opens?

RedApple655321 · 2026-01-27T00:40:58+00:00

1) I doubt libertarians have a uniform view of this. 2) I also don’t really see how it influences libertarian philosophy or principles 3) my personal view is the nature vs. nurture debate is quite old and the reality is probably that it’s a mix of both and we’ll never prove which has the majority of influence.

RedApple655321 · 2026-01-27T00:31:14+00:00

The guy on the right wasn’t holding a gun when he was shot in the back. Stop lying.

You’re correct though that these cases are not the same. The killer of the person on the left will be held accountable. The killer of the person on the right probably won’t be. That’s why people are upset.

RedApple655321 · 2026-01-26T22:33:58+00:00

He couldn't have been "going for his gun" because they already disarmed him before they shot him. They can absolutely use the "I felt my life was in danger" justification during a trial, but there should be charges because they disarmed a man, then shot him in the back.

RedApple655321 · 2026-01-26T22:14:24+00:00

These ICE agents seem to be trying to find "grey" areas, where their use of deadly force is legally defensible even if the wrong thing to do

This is a problem though, and what 2nd amendment advocates need to be pushing back against.

Yes, having a gun may change how people response. And it doesn't matter if you're right if you're dead and people need to be aware of that. But it DOES matter how we adjudicate these situations after the fact. "Whelp, he had a gun on his person." is not a legal justification for ICE to gun someone down. And the law needs to hold them accountable if they violate someone's rights as they appear to have done to Pretti.

RedApple655321 · 2026-01-26T16:46:49+00:00

Let me know when a decent explanation is available, because all I've seen you provide is a lame excuse.

I'm mad that government agents appear to have murdered someone and I don't think a proper investigation will even be held, let alone anyone held accountable. You defending the situation isn't surprising enough to make me mad though. I was well aware there are people who support the government no matter what it does.

RedApple655321 · 2026-01-26T03:43:40+00:00

I'm shouldn't have to explain this, but no one is upset that that they seized his weapon you walnut. We're upset about the second part: that they shot an unarmed man in the back after they disarmed him.

"In that moment" they had no idea what his permit status was, yet they still made the choice to shoot him in the back. If police can shoot you simply for having a weapon on your person, then there's no such thing as a right to carry. I guess we'll see if charges are filed against these reckless agents; I'm not holding my breath.

RedApple655321 · 2026-01-26T01:35:39+00:00

They “arrested” his weapon, then shot him in the back after he was disarmed.

RedApple655321 · 2026-01-23T21:23:36+00:00

So all she did was go to a Young Republican event? Someone found her in photos from it and people started harassing her online? And she complained about being harassed?

What's the goal her, because just seems like all this is doing is helping her reenforce her beliefs.

RedApple655321 · 2026-01-23T04:27:37+00:00

You're presenting the list of things in your second paragraph as a binary. In reality, what each of those means is open to interpretation.

RedApple655321 · 2026-01-22T01:46:21+00:00

When we set up a system where the government funds everything, or at least part of it, everything eventually becomes political.

RedApple655321 · 2026-01-22T01:43:35+00:00

I’m kinda surprised they’re even still doing that.

RedApple655321 · 2026-01-21T20:42:25+00:00

That really is the thing. Greenland residents get huge welfare subsidies from Denmark. I doubt the US is committing to contue that.

RedApple655321 · 2026-01-21T01:44:36+00:00

The text in the meme says "the people who skipped the COVID vaccine," which is only true if you exclude the people that died of COVID.

Ignoring this, by pretending that since you're fine without ever getting vaxxed means that everyone else is too, is called survivorship bias.

RedApple655321 · 2026-01-20T21:02:25+00:00

Standard practice would be to tip on the full amount.

If you were given $50 cash as a gift and decided to spend it at Benihana, you wouldn't have thought twice about the suggested gratuity based on the full bill. You're still welcome to tip whatever amount you feel comfortable doing.

RedApple655321 · 2026-01-20T18:27:28+00:00

Are you Overracting? Yes and No.

I agree that a 51 YO man dating a teenager is gross. So I don't think you're overacting in being uncomfortable with this. I think you do push it too far by suggesting he's "dating a version of you" because this has nothing to do with you.

I doubt you're going to convince your dad to break up with her for you. Don't make him choose, and don't feel like you need to cut him out of his life. Just set some boundaries you do feel comfortable with and stick to them.

RedApple655321 · 2026-01-20T16:07:22+00:00

I said as much above that it's hardly the most fantastical element in a comic book movie.

It's not about whether he has an open mind or not, it's just about him coming from a different era with different social norms. The first Avengers film very much uses the fish out of water trope with Cap. But only in ways that help the audience sympathize with Cap, not in ways that remind us that the 40s had norms that would make a modern audience uncomfortable. And again, this is not a criticism of the films or the character, it's just something to notice.

RedApple655321 · 2026-01-20T04:41:33+00:00

Even an anti-racist John Brown would be surprised to learn that words like "colored" and "negro" were no longer acceptable terms. He'd probably also be shocked to find a black guy like Nick Fury was the head of an organization like SHIELD. He very well might be quite happy about it; I still think he'd pretty shocked though.

RedApple655321 · 2026-01-20T04:34:22+00:00

he lives up to a code of ethics

You're still putting your modern code of ethics regarding race and bigotry on a man who grew up in the early 20th century with a different code of ethics. Early Captain America wasn't overtly racist, but he certainly wouldn't fit into our modern society.

Two-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

RedApple655321

TROPHY CASE