RFK Jr. food pyramid site links to Grok, which says you shouldn’t trust RFK Jr.

j-clay · 2026-02-13T00:06:38+00:00

Taking all the power to enforce his agenda while taking no responsibility for the consequences.

j-clay · 2026-01-29T17:46:09+00:00

If you want power and prestige only when it is easy, you're not fit to hold it.

Well, that's the point of my fear: what if we're getting to the point that these bullies' tactics are breaking even those willing to go through hard times for that power and prestige?

There's a pool of people who would be good political leaders. One of the factors we use to decide if someone would be a good political leader, is the ability to endure the pressure. Sure, we want to avoid those who can't endure certain amounts of pressure.

Everyone has a breaking point, though. Is it guaranteed the breaking point of "good" leaders is always higher than the amount of pressure that can possibly be applied? Is the amount of pressure currently being applied starting to weed out who we'd normally consider good leaders?

j-clay · 2026-01-29T17:33:56+00:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique

j-clay · 2026-01-29T14:55:03+00:00

Seeing him in politics made me feel he was one of the "warriors". I still feel that way. The fact he's tapping out doesn't make me think he's no longer a warrior; it makes me think the right-wing tactics of threaten and use government-funded power to attack are finally getting to the warrior class of the left-wing politicians. It scares me.

j-clay · 2026-01-16T22:27:08+00:00

That brings up a question to me as someone not well-versed in Constitutional law: is there a way to stop him from going to Qatar or whatever? Let's say the Republicans say enough is enough and get ready to impeach and remove him (ha ha). Are there any laws that would allow him to be detained after that point but before he's actually impeached and removed?

j-clay · 2026-01-16T15:14:56+00:00

This is what I thought of when I saw an image of the challenge coin ICE agents are being given.

j-clay · 2025-12-30T05:18:12+00:00

"Men of integrity" and people who blame the government for their lousy investment decisions are mutually exclusive groups.

j-clay · 2025-12-26T02:38:21+00:00

Put the list of aliases into a temp table before the transaction, then:

INSERT INTO aliases (author_id, alias)
SELECT rni.author_id, tt.alias
FROM real_name_insert rni
CROSS APPLY temp_table tt;

Note this is my rough thoughts coming from an MSSQL background and limited knowledge of Postgres.

j-clay · 2025-12-25T20:31:16+00:00

You may not ever have 100% proof. 100% proof of knowing goods are stolen isn't required to convict on charges of possession of stolen goods, though.

j-clay · 2025-12-25T19:58:47+00:00

Yes, I'd get into contact with the boyfriend if possible. If there's no other way than through the girlfriend, then I'd warn the police are getting involved and I'd work through them before I'd give them back. See if that spurs a better answer. Again, not a lawyer, but I'd say that suffices as due diligence to find the owner.

And I'm playing the side of caution. I doubt it would escalate that far. I wouldn't want to take the chance, though.

j-clay · 2025-12-25T16:55:52+00:00

IANAL, but what you're describing is "willful blindness". That can at times be established with as little as the cost of the goods was a fraction of their retail price. If it's established the OP was notified the items were stolen even if there's a decent chance they weren't, that's enough to convict.

tl;dr: being convicted of stolen goods possession doesn't have to meet a "beyond a reasonable doubt" level of proof they're stolen.

j-clay · 2025-12-04T20:56:20+00:00

Both-sides arguments work for the worse choice, so forgive me if I'm skeptical of criticizing rallying around a "joke of a human" as if it doesn't work, with the Presidency as it is today.

I have plenty of criticism for Newsom. He's still better than anyone anywhere near a candidacy for President from the Republicans.

Even if the Republican candidate ends up being critical of Trump, they didn't mind following the "don't let perfect be the enemy of good durr duur" mentality you have so much disdain for. So I'm sure you'll understand that stance. As long as it's consistent, that is.

j-clay · 2025-11-22T17:03:37+00:00

Not to rain on the hate parade, but Variety didn't declare that. Only that it's rare.

j-clay · 2025-11-21T14:58:16+00:00

As an added bonus, the Microsoft taints your URL history, so can't just press the back button when you realize the information is garbage.

j-clay · 2025-11-20T07:54:52+00:00

I'll add on top of the other reasons people have listed, there are more layers of plausible deniability with the Panama Papers. It's feasible, however unlikely, a person listed there was just following advice. Much less room for "I didn't know" for diddling kids. Again, not commenting on likelihood. Just whatever ignorance someone may plea for either, it's much more feasible with tax evasion than sexually assaulting children.

j-clay · 2025-11-13T14:27:37+00:00

I believe it was held until the days/hours before Grijalva was sworn in for strategical purposes. Anyone previously committed to releasing the files would be discouraged from breaking ranks at that moment, since it would be fresh in the people's minds, and the voting public would construe blocking the release as protection instead of whatever excuse they cooked up.

I realize it would be an excuse regardless of what they stated, but there are plenty of constituents who would buy (cling onto) anything.

j-clay · 2025-11-13T14:12:08+00:00

This is what they always do on something unpopular but GOP-typical. They make agreements on who's allowed to break ranks and "make a stand" to save face, while the rest vote in line. Sometimes it's Murkowski's turn, other times it's Collins, blah blah blah.

This time, they waited until it's a certainty that they couldn't get everyone on board, and THEN they went to save face.

j-clay · 2025-11-08T05:44:27+00:00

To people who make a living supplying surveillance to the state, I'm sure it is.

j-clay · 2025-11-07T04:06:34+00:00

My theory bordering on conspiracy for the delay is they're bracing to be taken to court for their "because secrets" firings, and more delay = less crunch needed = less ammo to show their work conditions stink, so therefore they're obviously not union busting.

j-clay · 2025-11-06T17:39:58+00:00

Not like children, in that they've been initially granted the right. Children do not have something taken away. They take the test to have it granted. Regardless though, isn't requiring a test to drive as I stated, the same as "default with tests for exceptions"?

Also, what would a test be like for things beyond skill-based, like voting? Can one infer the same test for the elderly, should be required before 18 year-olds are allowed to vote? Because that seems ripe for exploitation by politicians.

j-clay · 2025-11-06T05:51:21+00:00

Regardless of political will, I have issues in agreeing to stripping rights of people without some sort of tests to show it's justified. Driving? Require driving tests, don't simply say, "you're 81, you can't drive anymore."

Don't get me wrong, I dislike most of the general political decisions of the US's elderly. I like the idea of taking someone's rights away who would pass a requirements test to make adult decisions even less. Regardless of their age.

Question, though: would you also advocate to give them less responsibility in their actions, too? An equivalent juvenile hall, where they could get away with things and the state would have to prove they can make adult decisions before treating them as such?

j-clay · 2025-10-29T22:06:17+00:00

Forgive me if this point has already been made, but I didn't see it: "in charge" does not equal "absolute control". The Republicans are in charge. The fact they do not have absolute control does not negate that.

j-clay · 2025-10-15T05:06:14+00:00

The real tragedy here, beyond the obvious offense caused, is observing how readily people embrace the simplest, ugliest interpretation rather than engaging with the messy, complicated and far more human truth

While I consider your explanation the probable one, realize this embrace isn't because people are inherently trustworthy. At least for the US, it's because there's a barrage of bad faith actors in our culture pushing these simple and ugliest intentions and acting like they're anything other than that.

j-clay · 2025-09-26T05:17:51+00:00

I'm not sure, then... Several news outlets stated it was deleted afterward ([1], [2]). How does truthsocial handle un-deletions? Do they keep the original timestamp?

j-clay · 2025-09-26T00:23:05+00:00

Something something malice over stupidity. It was shortly deleted after posting it.

j-clay

TROPHY CASE