Stay Healthy

[bere...@tds.net]

Wow just wow.
RFK JR to head dept of health and human services.
Suppose there's any chance that appointment won't be confirmed?

[Patti Beadles]

The writers for this season need to be fired... everything is just too ludicrous to be believable. We have a science denier for health and human services, someone with zero prosecutorial experience or independence for attorney general, a Fox News host with no leadership experience for secdef, and a Russian asset for director of national intelligence.

-P

[Quick]

and ... all 3 branches of government :)

I'm still holding out hope that Sam Brinton will get pardoned and given a cabinet position.

On Thu, Nov 14, 2024, at 2:25 PM, Patti Beadles wrote:

The writers for this season need to be fired... everything is just too ludicrous to be believable.  We have a science denier for health and human services, someone with zero prosecutorial experience or independence for attorney general, a Fox News host with no leadership experience for secdef, and a Russian asset for director of national intelligence.

-P

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Barge Religion and Politics" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to barge-relpol...@barge.org.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/barge.org/d/msgid/barge-relpol/20241114222520.7B43DC0458%40kpmb.net.

[Patti Beadles]

Quick writes:

> I'm still holding out hope that Sam Brinton will get pardoned
> and given a cabinet position.

Don't be silly. Brinton is a small-time criminal who had the technical qualifications for their job. In order to work in the Trump administration they would have to really step up their criminal game and then get appointed to a role that they were wholly unqualified for. Maybe if they started selling highly classified information to Russia they could get appointed to head up the treasury or agriculture or something.

-P

[Steven R. Jacobs]

Quoting Patti Beadles <pat...@pattib.org>:

> and a Russian asset for director of national intelligence.
>

Wow, you bought into Hillary's big lie about Tulsi Gabbard?

I thought you were a little more discerning than that. Mitt Romney
repeated it, and Tulsi asked for evidence, but got nothing but
crickets chirping.

Russia! Russia! Russia!

[Jeff Roberts]

Well, we could listen to John Bolton.  You know, that left leaning liberal woke snowflake.

“Well, it must be the worst nomination for a cabinet position in American history,” Bolton, a key adviser to President-elect Donald Trump during his first term in office, told NBC’s “Meet the Press NOW” Wednesday.

“Gaetz is not only totally incompetent for this job, he doesn’t have the character,” Bolton added. “He is a person of moral turpitude, and notwithstanding how difficult it may be politically, this is a nomination the Republican Party should oppose.”

Followed by

“With his announcement of Tulsi Gabbard to be the director of national intelligence, he’s sending a signal that we have lost our mind when it comes to collecting intelligence,” Bolton continued.  

“Up until a few hours ago, I would have said that was the worst cabinet appointment in recent American history. Of course, since Matt Gaetz’s nomination, he clearly has taken the lead on that score.”

Multiple sources including Fox, Huffington Post, CNN, NY Post.  

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/14/politics/video/tulsi-gabbard-director-of-national-intelligence-trump-bolton-digvid

[Paul Zuzelo]

Putting aside the spinelessness and gutlessness of the elected Republicans in the House and Senate, there is a much more profoundly sad and disturbing phenomenon being exhibited by those who consider themselves traditional Republicans in the Ronald Reagan mold.  

It's reasonable to assume that these rank-and-file Republicans recognize the recklessness and outright danger of nominating these demonstrably incompetent individuals for such high-level positions of responsibility.  It's also quite likely that U.S. citizens will actually die as a result of the incompetence of these individuals in administering their departments and responsibilities.  Yet how do many rank and file Republicans respond to these terrible nominations?  Do they thoughtfully write "Gee, even though I voted for Trump, I wish he hadn't nominated an anti-vaxxer for head of HHS, or a credibly accused rapist as head of Justice?"  No, instead they gleefully troll and poke fun at the "libs" who are outraged at Trump's choices, an opportunity that they can't resist and appears to be much more important to them than caring about how their fellow citizens will be negatively affected by the appointment of incompetent individuals who will be focused on making life more difficult for Americans.  These so-called Republicans' attitude appears to be "Who cares if these incompetent appointees end up killing people, as long as I can continue to get under the skin of the libs and write cutesy and pseudo-humorous barbs about their outrage?"

So this is what winning has become to this group of Republicans: not an opportunity to actually try to make this a better country through "conservative Republican policies" but rather an unfettered chance to "stick it to the libs" for the next four years of Trump's presidency.  It's pretty much impossible to describe how sad and pathetic these people are.  They have nothing to lose by being true supporters of the classic Republican values they supposedly believe in -- they're not running for office and can't be targeted by Trump for disagreeing with him -- but lack even the tiniest amount of sympathy and concern for their fellow citizens who may be less fortunate than they and instead support any action that further outrages the Democrats.

Truly, profoundly sad.

And I'm waiting for Trump to nominate Vladimir Putin as head of the CIA. 

[LMB]

Paul. 
Without disagreeing on nearly anything you stated factually. I do have a question.

Do you not recognize that most of these traditional anti-lib Republicans believe that it is the Left/Democrats' policies and practices That are in fact killing people
several times More so than the Trumpsters?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Barge Religion and Politics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to barge-relpol...@barge.org.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/barge.org/d/msgid/barge-relpol/73b88ac7-faa8-49c4-bba6-bed7f910df73n%40barge.org.

[Patti Beadles]

Speaking of people dying...

Apparently there are a lot of people who voted for Trump because he promised to repeal Obamacare. They had no idea that Obamacare was a right-wing pejorative for the Affordable Care Act, and now they are freaking out because they just learned that they voted to destroy their own healthcare. I would be laughing at their ignorance if it wasn't for the fact that their ignorance will literally kill people if Trump manages to repeal the ACA this time around.

(But he has a "concept of a plan" for replacing it.)

-P

[Jeff Roberts]

And Dr. Oz will help with that concept. Who is next, Dr. Mercola?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Barge Religion and Politics" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/a/barge.org/d/topic/barge-relpol/XX7Ri4wX8hM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to barge-relpol...@barge.org.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/barge.org/d/msgid/barge-relpol/20241120203610.CF578C045B%40kpmb.net.

--

Jeff Roberts

925-200-0849

[Quick]

On Wed, Nov 20, 2024, at 11:38 AM, Paul Zuzelo wrote:

 but lack even the tiniest amount of sympathy and concern for their fellow citizens who may be less fortunate than they and instead support any action that further outrages the Democrats.

Truly, profoundly sad.

You mean like finding the hundreds of thousands of trafficked children that were collateral damage while importing millions of illegal migrants in hopes of increased future dem votes?

[Patti Beadles]

Quick writes:

> You mean like finding the hundreds of thousands of trafficked children
> that were collateral damage while importing millions of illegal migrants
> in hopes of increased future dem votes?

That's an impressively concise assemblage of nonsensical right-wing talking points. Well done, Quick.

I trust you have the same level of concern for the children that people like Matt Gaetz raped?

-P

[Ed Baker]

We were talking about this (the planned nominations) at the bar the other day. Believe it or not, there are a ton of Trump supporters at my local bar in Bedford, Massachusetts. I suggested that we wait until the appointments actually happen, instead of arguing about it now. Nobody knows what's going to happen between now and then. After that, the conversation shifted to long range missiles in Ukraine. I have to admit I kind of baited them by saying that Biden was starting WWIII to stick it to Trump when he comes in. 

I do like seeing the action here on RELPOL!

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Barge Religion and Politics" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to barge-relpol...@barge.org.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/barge.org/d/msgid/barge-relpol/73b88ac7-faa8-49c4-bba6-bed7f910df73n%40barge.org.

[Quick]

Not surprising. You're not in California (New York is a toss up). The large majority of America are Trump supporters :) 

If you're counting by sound level it might be a different story...

[Patti Beadles]

Quick writes:

> The large majority of America are Trump supporters :)

If that's the case then why did Trump get less than 50% of the popular vote? If the "large majority" of America support Trump I would expect him to get way more than that, at least 60%.

-P

[bere...@tds.net]

patti, this time Trump did get 50% of the popular vote
Harris 48.5%, not what I would call a large majority, but not less than 50%

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Barge Religion and Politics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to barge-relpol...@barge.org.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/barge.org/d/msgid/barge-relpol/20241121073518.628B1C0801%40kpmb.net.

[Paul Zuzelo]

Latest popular vote count from Reuters:

Although my graduate degree in math is 50 years old, I don't believe 49.9% is a majority."

[bere...@tds.net]

My Google search for the same data found the AP page that said 50%

 

---

From: Paul <paul.z...@gmail.com>
To: Barge <barge-...@barge.org>
Cc: bere...@tds.net <bere...@tds.net>; barge-...@barge.org <barge-...@barge.org>; pat...@pattib.org <pat...@pattib.org>
Date: Thursday, 21 November 2024 9:38 AM CST

[Quick]

Do you actually think that 100% of Americans cast their ballot?

[Patti Beadles]

> patti, this time Trump did get 50% of the popular vote

According to the Cook Political Report, Trump has 49.87% of the votes vs 48.25% of the votes for Harris.

https://www.cookpolitical.com/vote-tracker/2024/electoral-college

Quick writes:

> Do you actually think that 100% of Americans cast their ballot?

Of course 100% of Americans didn't cast their ballots. Do you have evidence that suggests that non-voters support Trump in far greater numbers than those who don't support him, or are you basing your assertion of "large majority" on the delusions of right-wing media?

-P

[Quick]

Are you claiming the non-deluded left-wing media is claiming that Harris won?

(By the way, you're not one of those election deniers are you?)

As for how much? well, it was ... too big to rig. :)

[Patti Beadles]

Quick sez:

> Are you claiming the non-deluded left-wing media is claiming that Harris won?

Did I say that? No, no I did not. I said that Trump got less than 50% of your popular vote, provided evidence to back up my assertion, and questioned your assertion that the "large majority" of Americans support Trump. Can you back up your "large majority" statement with evidence, or is it just a claim that you made up because you want to believe it's true?

> (By the way, you're not one of those election deniers are you?)

Of course not... I am grounded in reality. If credible evidence emerged suggesting that there were outcome-determinative problems with the election then I would absolutely try to understand that evidence and evaluate its credibility. I'm not a Trump supporter, though, so I'm not going to claim that there was election fraud and that the election was stolen despite there being absolutely no evidence to support that assertion. Facts matter to me.

-P

[Quick]

Ok, fine. I'll take the high road. I'll give you a "We almost won" award.

[Charles Breuninger]

Hey Quick, that award is actually called the "We almost had him" award.  It applies to the election, the lawfare and the assassination attempts.  

The Abbreviated name for this award is, of course the "WAHH"

RC

Chuck Breuninger a.k.a. Rick Charles

http://facebook.com/voiceofpoker 

Twitter: @voiceofpoker

Las Vegas, NV

702-689-4397

A++ G+++ PKR+ !PEG B+ TB ADB+ M+

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Barge Religion and Politics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to barge-relpol...@barge.org.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/barge.org/d/msgid/barge-relpol/e68daa39-0a0e-4596-b373-c18ff6baa8ba%40app.fastmail.com.

[Patti Beadles]

Quick writes:

> Ok, fine. I'll take the high road. I'll give you a "We almost won" award.

I'll take whatever award you give as a concession that Trump didn't get the majority of the popular vote and that a "large margin" of Americans support him is merely your fantasy. Thank you for conceding that.

-P

[Quick]

maybe some definitions would be in order.

What is your definition of "the popular vote"?

What is your definition of "the majority of the popular vote?"

In order to win the popular vote wouldn't one have to get more than 50% of the popular vote?

I'm pretty sure most all of the deluded left-leaning media outlets have reported that Trump won the popular vote.

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Barge Religion and Politics" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to barge-relpol...@barge.org.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/barge.org/d/msgid/barge-relpol/20241121215317.83DF8C0801%40kpmb.net.

[Patti Beadles]

Quick sez:

> What is your definition of "the popular vote"?

The total number of ballots cast for president.

> What is your definition of "the majority of the popular vote?"
> In order to win the popular vote wouldn't one have to get more than 50% of the popular vote?

I define majority as anyone with a basic understanding of math would define it-- 50% + 1 of the total number of ballots cast for president. There were more than two candidates on the ballot so one candidate could win the popular vote with less than 50% of the total. As of this writing Trump has 49.87% of the popular vote and Harris has 48.25%, which means 1.88% of the votes were cast for other candidates.

> I'm pretty sure most all of the deluded left-leaning media outlets have reported that Trump won the popular vote.

Initially that was true but as more votes have been counted Trump has fallen below 50% of the total number of ballots cast for president. I provided a source for this in an earlier message so I won't repeat it. You're welcome to do the math yourself, but I trust that we can agree that 49.87% is a plurality but not a majority of the votes?

-P

[Paul Zuzelo]

The Quick Challenge

 

OK, Quick, I will donate $100 to the 501 (c) (3) charity of your choice if, in Patti’s sole good-faith opinion, you answer all the questions below honestly as requested:

 

11    I consider myself a Republican (Yes or No only).

22    I thought Matt Gaetz was qualified to be Attorney General of the U.S. (Yes or No only).

33    I think Pete Hegseth is qualified to be Secretary of Defense (Yes or No only).

44    I think Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is qualified to be Secretary of Health and Human Services (Yes or No only).

55    I think Tulsi Gabbard is qualified to be head of National Intelligence (Yes or No only).

66    I think Mehmet Oz is qualified to be head of Medicare and Medicaid (Yes or No only).

77    I think Linda McMahon is qualified to be Secretary of Education (Yes or No only).

88   I think Kristi Noem is qualified to be head of Homeland Security (Yes or No only).

99    Considering 100% of the reasons that I post to RELPOL, my overall #1 reason for posting here is to annoy / get under the skin of / make snarky remarks to / troll / [list all other possible non-constructive reasons here] the “libs” (using the broadest possible definition of “libs”) (Yes or No only).

110.  If your answer to “9 above is “No,” list your #1 reason here:

 

Are you up to this challenge?

[Charles Breuninger]

Hey, I know some 501c's that could use some money...give me a list!

RC

Chuck Breuninger a.k.a. Rick Charles

http://facebook.com/voiceofpoker 

Twitter: @voiceofpoker

Las Vegas, NV

702-689-4397

A++ G+++ PKR+ !PEG B+ TB ADB+ M+

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Barge Religion and Politics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to barge-relpol...@barge.org.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/barge.org/d/msgid/barge-relpol/29d6a1b3-3a8c-46db-8f13-9881c8554f9an%40barge.org.

[Quick]

Sorry Paul. But you should donate $100 to a 501(c)(3) anyway.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Barge Religion and Politics" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to barge-relpol...@barge.org.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/barge.org/d/msgid/barge-relpol/29d6a1b3-3a8c-46db-8f13-9881c8554f9an%40barge.org.

[Paul Zuzelo]

Ah... not willing to answer honestly.  Why am I not in the least surprised?

Also, I'm 100% certain that every year I donate a higher percentage of both my yearly income and net worth to charities than Elon Musk does.

[Patti Beadles]

Paul writes:

> Ah... not willing to answer honestly. Why am I not in the least surprised?

The unwillingness to answer means you should donate the $100 to the DNC or some other worthy political cause.

-P

[Quick]

See? No need to elicit your response.

(sad that you had no intention of donating anything)

[Patti Beadles]

I just meandered over to ActBlue and donated $100 to a fund that will use it wisely. Thanks for the nudge!

-P

[Paul Zuzelo]

It's always fascinating to get a glimpse into the workings of a true conspiracy theorist's mind...

Go ahead and answer my questions, and name your charity, should you find the intestinal fortitude to do so.

[Charles Breuninger]

First off, Happy birthday.

Secondly, I would bet that ActBlue was a major funder of both the D.A. and Mayor in Oakland that were just recalled, so if you want to keep dumping your hard earned money down that hole, I can offer you much better alternatives.

RC

Chuck Breuninger a.k.a. Rick Charles

http://facebook.com/voiceofpoker 

Twitter: @voiceofpoker

Las Vegas, NV

702-689-4397

A++ G+++ PKR+ !PEG B+ TB ADB+ M+

On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 3:03 PM Patti Beadles <pat...@pattib.org> wrote:

I just meandered over to ActBlue and donated $100 to a fund that will use it wisely.  Thanks for the nudge!

-P

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Barge Religion and Politics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to barge-relpol...@barge.org.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/barge.org/d/msgid/barge-relpol/20241122230115.4D2FDC2308%40kpmb.net.

[Patti Beadles]

Rick writes:

> First off, Happy birthday.

Thanks!

> Secondly, I would bet that ActBlue was a major funder of both the D.A. and
> Mayor in Oakland that were just recalled, so if you want to keep dumping
> your hard earned money down that hole, I can offer you much better
> alternatives.

I know we've discussed this in chat but for the rest of the audience...

ActBlue does not choose to fund anyone. They are essentially the campaign fundraising equivalent of GoFundMe... a central infrastructure platform for campaign fundraising. Individual campaigns set up their own ActBlue account and people can easily donate to campaigns through ActBlue.

Republicans spun up a copycat called WinRed but it hasn't gotten as much traction.

(I did not contribute to either of the local campaigns that you mentioned, BTW.)

-P

[Paul Zuzelo]

Quick wrote:

"See? No need to elicit your response.

(sad that you had no intention of donating anything)"

In honor of Quick’s courageous refusal to truthfully and honestly answer my questions for him (thus proving conclusively that he considers himself a Republican), I have made a $100 contribution to Wikimedia (see below).

 

I look forward to his response, confident that it will include the Republican holy trinity of (1) what aboutism, (2) false equivalency, and (3) a failed attempt at snarky humor.

[Quick]

Paul, (brace yourself) the election already happened.

[Paul Zuzelo]

Quick wrote:

"Paul, (brace yourself) the election already happened."

Wow!  An answer I didn't anticipate: complete, bizarre, irrelevancy.

Genuinely, I have no idea what you mean by this.  None whatsoever.  Feel free to elucidate.