Lemon Party
The answer is simple. Lemon should start a Lemon Party.
wink - those who know, know
Last year, two high-profile American news anchors lost their jobs. This year, CNN's Don Lemon joined Fox News's Tucker Carlson with a new show on Elon Musk's X. Only one of those presenters still has the slot, however, and somehow it's the credulous, slack-jawed goon who cheerfully signal-boosted Russian propaganda that won …
And if Xitler had ever made such a distinction, that would be a valid point. However, when you're perfectly fine accepting money from a bunch of Nazi's to spread hate speech, but someone asking you about alleged drug use causes you to throw a giant man-baby tantrum, you're not exactly arguing from a position of strength. We also don't really know what the terms of the proposed contract were, though I'm more inclined to believe Lemon just on the basis that Xitler has an established track record of lying about things. Funding secured, that he held one of his kids as they died, that he'd never allow Alex Jones back on Xitter after the Sandy Hook comments, etc, etc.
Sure, but Lemon knew all of that when he accepted the original contract and he seemed perfectly fine with the idea of getting money from Musk/Twitter when it suited him.
In his own words: "You knew it was a snake when you picked it up."
I don't find much redeeming about X or Musk in general, but I also I don't find much sympathy for Lemon or think he is brave for "standing his ground" in this situation.
You seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that I'm defending Lemon. I have zero respect for him agreeing to take a job with Xitter, but he's also not the asshole who's been running around claiming to be a free speech absolutionist or any other such nonsense, and then failed to live up to his own self-imposed obligations. Lemon was actually living up to his end of things of being a reputable journalist. CNN didn't fire him because he pulled a Dan Rather or that guy at NBC whose name I can't remember now, where they were basically making up or exaggerating stories. He was just an asshole off-camera who got a little too big for their britches, sort of like former Fox News jihadist Fucker Carlson. His journalistic integrity has never been called into question that I'm aware of.
Anyway, it's entirely possible for both sides to be assholes, but as usual, Xitler is the bigger asshole. So to borrow from David Spade's character in the movie PCU: It doesn't matter who wins, because they're both losers.
X is a private company, they can do what they want. Or so the political left said until Muskprat bought it.
This is a far cry from the baying mobs doxxing and contacting the employers of random people who post on the internet cos something hurt their fee-fees.
X is a private company, they can do what they want.
No one here has said otherwise. They're just pointing out Musk's hypocrisy. Which, to be honest, has been so blatant for so long that I suspect many of us are tired of seeing people point it out — either you acknowledge it or you're a Musk trufan who's basking in willful ignorance, so it's really not even worth mentioning any more. I suggest you stop whistling for the dogs, folks.
Lemon's show wasn't exclusive to Twatter. I would imagine that this little spat would be a godsend to his ratings on the other platforms like YouTube and Amazon and various podcast channels.
Xitler OTOH is proving just how of an ego maniac he is. He could have just said nowt and it would have all blown over but no... musk (like Trumpo) has to get the last word in even if it is total gibberish.
《will lap up even the most outlandish noises from Musk's mouth like a malnourished kitten,》
My only query whether the writer specified correct orifice which was providing this sustenance (or tucker:)?
Although in this case probably equivocal as these chaps talk great deal of the brown stuff.
In AU there is a crude, deprecatory phrase describing overt synchophants: "brown tongue lizard."
I supposed a wedge of sliced lemon inserted between throbbing haemorrhoids would infame the most composed, let alone Musk.
His answer concerning his (ab)use of "special K" might be concerning but for the fact that a fatal seizure would benefit most of his enterprises.
《...what matters is execution ... For investors, if there's something I'm taking, I should keep taking it."》
I can think if a few single dose formulations...
"There's a big difference between allowing free speech on your platform and paying a salary and stock options for it."
If you are claiming to be a defender of free speech, or a proponent of free speech, that could be true. But when you are a self-proclaimed "free speech absolutist", then there are no gotchas, gimmes, or ways out. It's the very definition of the word "absolute". Absolute is absolute.
Technically he qualified it with "that's not illegal" but given nothing Lemon said was in any way illegal, Xitler is failing to put his money where his mouth is. Let's also not forget that Xitler has done things like ban Kanye West, along with a number of journalists who have written things about him he didn't like. None of which was illegal, so really it seems to be that if it's illegal or Xitler doesn't like it, it will get removed. I'm sure there are plenty of other little carve outs that failed to get mentioned anywhere, and change from day to day, depending on if he's jonesing for his next ketamine fix or riding the high of his latest one.
I thought Ye was persona non grata due to comments about a certain group so his ban should sit ok with you?
And the political left has tried to get entire news orgs taken off the air because they said things you disagree with. So what is the difference? What is good for the goose and all that.
"And the political left has tried to get entire news orgs taken off the air because they said things you disagree with."
A U.S. court found that "news org" liable for defamation for lying about Dominion voting machines. Your bleating about the "political left" and "said things you disagree with" is about as whiny as they come. Sorry your fee-fees got bent out of shape.
Musk has gone off the rails many times. Although he does come across as sensible some of the time. And Twitter is STILL pretty much the only big social media place where you can say legal but inconvenient things that western governments don't like, so there's that. He still gets on my nerves though, like a spoilt man-child billionaire, who is used to people saying yes sir.
Tucker is a conspiracy theorist nutcase, like Fox News on steroids (I guess, have never actually watched Fox). Pay-per-click-bait. Occasionally he makes some good points.
Lemon was a bit of a Covid nazi, blaming the unvaccinated (like most of corporate media). CNN literally painted Rogan green using PhotoShop to make him look ill, and that was while Lemon was still there. So, they are on my list of Joke Media (along with The Guardian, The Atlantic, and many others)
So, that's an interview / car crash I definitely won't be watching thank-you-very-much.
But thanks for taking the hit for the team El Reg.
Wow this has garnered some "engagement". ;-)
I'm not sure who I've offended, or perhaps I've just offended The Left by picking on Lemmon, The Right by picking on Tucker and the floating-around-every-which way by picking on Musk?
I'd really like to know which part has given such a ratio?? All seems pretty sensible from my echo chamber.
I don't know
If I was paid millions of dollars by my company and I deliberately set out to savage the CEO, and bring a bad faith interview like this, I would personally expect consequences (regardless of your opinion on Musk).
Don Lemon...I find him a generic NPC who merely parrots the corporate lefty opinions de jour that he has been told to champion. I don't dislike the chap, he just rarely says anything inspiring
The interview was about as savage as a beating with a feather duster. Don Lemoan is only used to interviewing people who parrot his worldview and in this interview he was desperately fishing for some soundbite that could be snipped and used like the 'bloodbath' quote from the orange one.
I don't get what the fuss is about-
https://www.thewrap.com/don-lemon-x-show-canceled-after-elon-musk-interview/
The 'show' still seems to be on Twitter, so doesn't seem like the usual Twitter cancellation-
All this said, Lemon/Zucker are of course welcome to build their viewership on this platform along with everyone else.
Just Lemon may have talked himself out of the deal he wanted. Latest seems to be he's not getting the views he wanted on X, but then that's much as it was for his shows on CNN.
Oh FFS, STFU and GTFO. Lemon was asking very legitimate questions and giving Xitler a chance to address various reports about him being a drug addict, antisemite, racist, etc. Instead of taking the opportunity he was given to allay the concerns of Tesla shareholders, he very clearly threatens the job of the guy, and then makes good on that threat. Some of his other comments makes it clear he was expecting it to be an exercise in ego fluffing where Lemon performs verbal fellatio, and then he threw a giant man-baby tantrum when he was asked serious questions.
No one was "savage[d]" unless you think any kind of interview more hard hitting than a puff piece is "savage".
Nice false equivalency. About the same as people who can't distinguish between disagreeing with the decisions of the Israeli government and claiming that there's a secret cabal of Jewish individuals who are secretly running the world and all kinds of other nefarious things. I mean, if George Soros did even half the things he's been accused of, he'd be like every Bond villain combined, and more.
I don't know the person, but those questions, while hard, are the kind of thing you expect from an interview. If you have had problems, very public ones, getting advertising for your social media platform, and advertising is the primary revenue source for the thing which has been running at a loss for basically its entire life as a company and a big loss since you took over, that is likely to come up when someone is interviewing you. You should expect that it will come up, have a PR person come up with a nice answer that makes you sound confident and the business sound successful, and have it ready for that point in the interview. Having someone ask those questions when you control the situation means you have the power to respond exactly how you'd like. Clearly, he didn't plan for that and took offense at the questions, but they're not outlandish or offensive questions.
If you are hiring a reporter to interview you, expect to be asked questions. If you don't want that, hire the reporter and don't have them interview you, or hire someone who will ask you only questions you wrote. Musk didn't plan this out, but it would have been a perfectly workable way for him to learn what the questions would be and have good* answers for the lot.
* Well, not all of them would be good, but they would be the ones that sound best in his situation. For instance, his answer about drug use may not have been great in our opinion, but it was confident which is probably the best that one could hope for with that situation.
I'd really like to know which part has given such a ratio?? All seems pretty sensible from my echo chamber.
Read the article again. It's not exactly unbiased, but then articles from the extreme far-left rarely are. Lemon is allegedly a serious journalist, Carlson isn't, and ever since Musk bought the left's echo chamber, he's become something of a hate figure. Pavlov's lefties will then respond to the dogwhistles, and remove thumbs from asses to apply to keyboard any time anyone dares to criticise them.
But..
Musk's relationship with Donald Trump, and some Tesla Roadster guff, the conversation took an awkward turn when Lemon drilled into Musk's ketamine prescription to treat an occasional "negative chemical state."
Seems perhaps a bit unwise when you're in contract negotiations, but then Lemon isn't exactly well known for his wisdom and intelligence. Has X banned Lemon, or has Musk filed for defamation yet?
Extreme far left. What an arseclown you are.
Did I mention whistles? Good doggy! Or I guess it's a bit like Dune and the way Paul's name became a trigger word. Or it's like Snowcrash's memetic virus got some gain of function from Scanners. Mention Trump, Musk and Carlson in the same sentence, watch the faces go red, the veins bulge, then stand well back and yell 'Putin'..
Nor do I identify in any shape or form with "extreme far-left," just sanity hopefully.
I'm.. not convinced.
Only one of those presenters still has the slot, however, and somehow it's the credulous, slack-jawed goon who cheerfully signal-boosted Russian propaganda that won out.
Also-
The disintegration of Lemon's (unsigned) contract to host the show on X
So if Lemon didn't have a signed contract, how could Musk 'sack' him? If Lemon's show is still on X, how has he been 'cancelled'? But like I said to Ace, extreme far left is just me riffing on the far-left's 'extreme MAGA Republicans' meme, knowing it'll provoke a reaction from those that think of themselves as libertarians and upholders of 'democracy'. As Private Eye would say though, it's a funny old world. On the one hand, the Dems are whining about 'foreign election interference' and how the recent Russian elections were illegitmate. On the other, the DNC is desperately trying to lock up or bankrupt their political rivals, along with anyone who dares question the last election. On which point, some interesting news came out about Dominion and logins from Kosovo..
He's gone so far right, i suspect eely thinks fucking hitler was left wing.
You have a.. very vivid imagination, but he's dead, not my type and necrophilia is illegal. But I do recommend reading Germany's annotated Mein Kampf. It doesn't make it any less turgid, but if you'd read it, you may notice the way the far-left are increasingly copying his ideas.. Especially Germany's Green party.
Who could have guessed?
Well, if you had read it, then you might know something. But it's normal with the far-left's projection and blindly hurling insults like 'nazi' or 'hitler' without actually having any clue. It's why the far-left is slowly pushing you towards fascism after all.
But we've already established you have different priorities and interests than the "mainstream"
So you will remain blissfully ignorant, and continue to rant about Hitler, Nazis and many other subjects on which you have no clue. The title of this article is clearly incorrect, yet you will defend it with much sound and fury. Meanwhile, dear troll, you may start to notice that you're not actually part of the mainstream.. It's election season in Europe and the US, and already lefty leaders are dropping like flies. That's always been the problem with real democracy. Ignore the mainstream, or act against their interests and you'll soon be out of office.
But then of course you can always join the 'firey but mostly peaceful protests' and express your hatred of democracy..
My Dad caught me reading Marx (Karl, not Groucho) when I was about 12. Instead of getting grumpy about it (this was the peak of the cold war era, people were touchy about such things), he recommended that I get a translation of Mein Kampf, Lenin's works and a newly published English translation of Quotations of Chairman Mao (if they had a copy) next time I was at the Stanford Library. So I did. And discovered these "dangerous" writings were boring, incredibly daft, quite silly in places, and certainly not worth banning. That phase of my life went away in a week or two. Funny how education often has that effect ...
Quite a bit later, I found a scanned copy of The Anarchist's Cookbook squirreled away on a Berkeley FTP site. I printed it out, and Dad and I had great fun finding all the flaws in it ... Yes, I still have all my extremities, and they are still properly attached. Dad has his, too.
"where they burn books, they will in the end also burn people" —Heinrich Heine
Exhibit B: "Contract is canceled" rafn snafn frafn
So.. what you're saying is he wasn't actually sacked, and hasn't been cancelled in the traditional Twitter sense, ie kicked off the platform? Still not clear where the 'free speech' issues are if he's still free to post on X. Unless 'free' means he's not getting the ludicrous deal he was allegedly offered.
I'm curious. Do you get paid to be this obtuse or do you do it for free?
I'm just not a fan of 'fake news', or the way the far-left uses it to attack their hate figures. Headline says-
When life gives you Lemon, sack him
Lemon wasn't sacked. Man has interview with boss for a job, blows it, isn't hired. In other news, firefighters rescue cat stuck in tree. Only real aspect of this story that I'm curious about is if the job details were ever real, or it was another Smollet. X is busily bleeding cash (it's a bloodbath!) so why Musk would ever consider giving Lemon-
.. a $5 million upfront payment on top of an $8 million salary, an equity stake in the multibillion-dollar company, and the right to approve any changes in X policy as it relates to news content"
especially any editorial control given Lemon was sacked from CNN for racist/mysogynist and ageist comments. And as Lemon put it-
"It would seem to defy credulity that if 21 million people engaged with my post on X announcing my new show, that only a few hundred thousand would be interested in the interview on X as of this afternoon," Lemon told TheWrap, adding "It just doesn't make sense."
So maybe X users just aren't interested in either Lemon or Musk, and $8m a year isn't justified. He wasn't bringing in the viewers at CNN, he doesn't appear to be at X either.
I'm just not a fan of 'fake news', or the way the far-left uses it to attack their hate figures.
Explain to the class what you think "opinion" means, because I guarantee you it's not the same as everyone else.
Lemon wasn't sacked. Man has interview with boss for a job, blows it, isn't hired.
That's some impressive mental gymnastics you've performed. Especially since we don't know what the terms of the contract were. What we have are two assholes claiming different things, though one asshole has a long track record of making outright false statements.
So maybe X users just aren't interested in either Lemon or Musk, and $8m a year isn't justified. He wasn't bringing in the viewers at CNN, he doesn't appear to be at X either.
CNN fired him because he was being an abusive asshole off camera, not because his ratings were low or anything else. Like jihadist Fucker Carlson, he got too big for his britches at the network and started thinking he was untouchable, so could act like a huge diva. He was then disabused of that idea.
That's some impressive mental gymnastics you've performed. Especially since we don't know what the terms of the contract were. What we have are two assholes claiming different things, though one asshole has a long track record of making outright false statements.
Not really. Headline says he was sacked. Story says he didn't have a contract. How do you sack someone you don't employ? If the contract wasn't executed by both parties, it wasn't in force. It isn't a difficult concept to understand for most people.
CNN fired him because he was being an abusive asshole off camera, not because his ratings were low or anything else.
And yet you seem to be defending him. His ratings were low, and falling, which would have made CNN's decision easier.. But then CNN's ratings have been plummeting for a long time now. Get woke, go broke and all that.
Like jihadist Fucker Carlson, he got too big for his britches at the network and started thinking he was untouchable, so could act like a huge diva. He was then disabused of that idea.
You seem to know as much about defamation as you do employment law. So sure, Carlson got fired. Now he's independent and can speak truth to power, and seems to be doing rather well for himself. Meanwhile, another huge diva is whining he didn't get a massive signing bonus, salary, equity, editorial control over the entirety of X's 'news' output or a free Cyberduck. He's actually going to have to work for a living, and based on his X ratings, nobody wants to buy what he's selling. World + dog has interviewed Musk. Not that many people are really interested. Who else is lining up for the Lemon treatment?
Not really. Headline says he was sacked. Story says he didn't have a contract. How do you sack someone you don't employ? If the contract wasn't executed by both parties, it wasn't in force. It isn't a difficult concept to understand for most people.
Again. Tell the class what you think "opinion" means. Then go look it up in a dictionary. I guarantee you they will not be the same, or even remotely similar.
And yet you seem to be defending him. His ratings were low, and falling, which would have made CNN's decision easier.. But then CNN's ratings have been plummeting for a long time now. Get woke, go broke and all that.
1) While you're looking up the definition of "opinion" maybe include "defend" to the list, because that's another word you seem confused about
2) What do CNN's ratings have to do with anything being discussed here? For that matter, what does CNN have to do with anything being discussed here? This was a deal between Xitter and Don Lemon, an independent agent. CNN wasn't involved in any way, shape, or form.
You seem to know as much about defamation as you do employment law. So sure, Carlson got fired. Now he's independent and can speak truth to power, and seems to be doing rather well for himself. Meanwhile, another huge diva is whining he didn't get a massive signing bonus, salary, equity, editorial control over the entirety of X's 'news' output or a free Cyberduck. He's actually going to have to work for a living, and based on his X ratings, nobody wants to buy what he's selling. World + dog has interviewed Musk. Not that many people are really interested. Who else is lining up for the Lemon treatment?
I'd wager I know more about virtually any topic than you. Well, any intellectual topic. Still not sure what ratings have to do with anything, but thanks for the chuckle over the mental image of Fucker Carlson talking truth to power. Look at basically any interview Fucker has done with people like Trump or Xitler, and then compare it to the interview Lemon did with Xitler. The former is verbal fellatio while the later is still not speaking truth to power, but it's infinitely closer than anything Fucker has ever done.
Random fun fact for the road: Fucker Carlson used to work for CNN. He wore these ridiculous looking bowties and looked like the picture you'd expect to see along side the dictionary definition of "nerd". I guess by your logic, since Fucker and Lemon are both ex-CNN employees, they're both extreme left-wing shills.
Again. Tell the class what you think "opinion" means. Then go look it up in a dictionary. I guarantee you they will not be the same, or even remotely similar.
I realise you need a lot of education, and a lot of opinions aren't remotely facts. Yet they're often presented that way. Lemon was sacked, Trump is planning a bloodbath. Both incorrect. The Earth isn't flat either. Opinions can however tell you a lot about the person, and whether they are credible or not. I wonder why people don't trust the media any more?
My Pillows are actually very good, I have 2.
The US political establishment admitted to rigging 2020.
"a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information"
Phrases such as "our democracy", "election integrity" and "fortifying" are just dog whistles for "make the person we want win" and this can be achieved "by any means necessary".
> My Pillows are actually very good, I have 2.
Yeah no. I tried one at the home of a relative who'd bought them as a form of virtue signalling. If you want to replicate the experience at home, you can do it on the cheap by buying a plastic bag of cotton balls at the drugstore and resting your head on that.
My Pillows are actually very good
They're good for giving you a pinched nerve in your neck the next morning. Someone gave me one years ago, back when pillow fucker could be considered merely eccentric, as opposed to a seditionist. I tried it maybe once, and it's been sitting in a closet somewhere ever since.
Ah... drinking the 'My Pillow Guy' Koolaid I see?You'll be chanting that the 2024 election has already been rigged next...
You have evidence the emails are false? Don't forget though that Fox was fined a lot of money for questioning voting machine security, and those investigations are still ongoing in Georgia. The most obvious attempts at vote rigging for 2024 are of course all the attempts to eliminate Biden's rival. How very Russian of him.
It's funny, I was watching that "How to become a cult leader" docuseries on Netflix and they were profiling that guy in Japan who set off those poison bombs in the subways. Before those attacks, he ran for political office and got absolutely crushed at the polls. He then tells his cult followers that he was the victim of a conspiracy and the polls were all rigged by the US, UK, Freemasons, and (naturally) the Jews. Any of this starting to sound a little familiar?
Yes, yes. You've dutifully spread your Russian propaganda for the day. I can only hope you're one of those people who is a victim of human trafficking and are being forced to post these idiotic things. Though quite why they would waste their time on a relatively small and niche site like this boggles the mind, but maybe there are factors I'm just not considering. Either way, if you really were this... challenged, it would be a sad tally for the idea that humans have an infinite capacity for stupid.
Though quite why they would waste their time on a relatively small and niche site like this boggles the mind, but maybe there are factors I'm just not considering
In case you hadn't noticed, this is an IT site. Well, it used to be. Security of voting machines was something of a hot topic last election. This is still being examined. But some people instantly decided everything was fine, everything was secure. And then-
The settlement was one of the largest defamation settlements in U.S. history, and is believed to be the largest defamation settlement in U.S. history by a media organization
Security of elections is obviously rather important in a democracy. Yet-
Following the 2020 United States presidential election, Donald Trump, his attorneys, and other right-wing personalities amplified the unfounded rumours originated by the proponents of the far-right QAnon conspiracy theory that Dominion Voting Systems had been compromised,
And now there might be evidence that they were. But an unauthorised login doesn't mean results were tampered with or compromised. It may also be a simple issue to address, eg 2FA authentication. But don't you think it's a little odd, or concerning that potentially exculpatory evidence has been supressed?
> She still seems convinced those evil Russians cost her the election against Trump.
Haha nice try vatnik. We also seem convinced.
Oh look!!! The Steele dossier is available on Elreg. Nevertheless she conceded, for the sake of preserving democracy. Unlike the thin-skin orange twat.
There's also a big difference between "I lost because idiots believed Russian disinformation" and "The vote was rigged against me!!!11!!111!!!!1!!1"
Last I checked, neither Clinton nor the DNC has ever alleged that Russia was manipulating voting machines or anything in 2016. Only that there was a coordinated effort on the part of Russia to spread disinformation to favor Trump. There's also pretty credible allegations that Russia may have been a bit more hands on in helping advise the Trump campaign given how many strange ties top Trump campaign officials had to Russian oligarchs. There was also the one campaign manager who literally sold polling data to some Russians he was up to his eyeballs in debt to.
Still, unlike Cheetolini, there were no claims that a bunch of illegals were somehow bussed in to vote, that the voting machines were rigged to change Trump votes to Biden, that poll workers were secretly swapping out ballots, or any of the other nonsense that Trump has come up with because his fragile little ego can't comprehend the fact that he's a loser. This is the same guy who, one of the first actions he took as POTUS, was to have Sean Spicer try to convince everyone that Trump's inauguration had a bigger attendance than Obama's, using a poorly photoshopped image.
Clinton also didn't whip up a crowd of supporters and then try to stage a bloody coup when she lost. I'm sure there was some broken furniture and other things, but there weren't dozens of frivolous lawsuits filed all over the country, she didn't have one of her supporters look like he was a little too excited to be next door to a dildo factory, she didn't so much as file a lawsuit challenging any of the poll outcomes. Whatever your opinion of Clinton, she is infinitely more the patriot and stateswoman than Cheetolini.
Last I checked, neither Clinton nor the DNC has ever alleged that Russia was manipulating voting machines or anything in 2016. Only that there was a coordinated effort on the part of Russia to spread disinformation to favor Trump.
I'm guessing you're referring to the Steele Dossier?
Clinton also didn't whip up a crowd of supporters and then try to stage a bloody coup when she lost.
And yet those 'firey, but mostly peaceful protests' happened. All those useful idiots waving 'Trump Out' banners, and forcing the President to shelter in the Whitehouse bunker.. And Clinton is still in denial. But that's a theme for Democrats. A key principle is ensuring election integrity. Democrats have no integrity so shut down most of the investigations, or just claimed 'conspiracy theory' when no investigations have been conducted or completed. Since the elections, there have been a lot of prosecutions though, mostly small scale and probably not enough to have changed the results. Meanwhile, gerrymandering is ongoing, eg importing illegal immigrants in a hope they'll become future Democrat voters..
I'm guessing you're referring to the Steele Dossier?
No, though I'm sure you are laboring under the mistaken impression that a dossier is intended to be some sort of coherent story as opposed to a collection of reports.
[incoherent babble snipped]
WTF are you on (about)? What does any of that have to do with anything?
"Meanwhile, gerrymandering is ongoing, eg importing illegal immigrants in a hope they'll become future Democrat voters.."
That's not even wrong ...
Do you enjoy embarrassing yourself all the time? Is it fun for you? If not, I'm pretty certain you can find help in your country. It might not even require meds.
As somebody once said, "It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
gerrymandering is a typical Republican thing anyway. And they shamelessly admit it.
Also immigrants don't vote by definition and only their children can vote. Quite often, they vote conservative due to their religious upbringing. That's also well known. Otherwise Texas and Florida would have turned blue a long time ago.
But being "illegal immigrants" (per the OP), the folks we are discussing have no way to get an actual ballot.
That's one of the challenges of democracy and 'free and fair' elections. So boring little details like 1 person, 1 vote. Or maintaining accurate voter registration databases. Or ensuring that a person that votes is actually entitled to vote. All of which could be improved, but.. a certain party seems to want to do just the opposite. So sensible suggestions like voter ID get shouted down for being 'racist', in a country where it's pretty much impossible to do anything official or legal without having some form of ID.
Much of the stuff isn't exactly rocket science, but it's a bit odd that suggestions to improve election security get shouted down in favor of ones that weaken it.
When it finally got to the New York Court of Appeals, the Republicans lost. It wasn't illegal according to NY State Law. In other words, as per usual the Republicans generated a lot of hot air, wasting everybody's time and money, on totally meaningless bluster and bravado. It's all the GOP does anymore. Quite sad.
https://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2023/Dec23/90opn23-Decision.pdf
When was the last time your Republican Representative did anything for the district s/he is supposed to represent?
When it finally got to the New York Court of Appeals, the Republicans lost. It wasn't illegal according to NY State Law. In other words, as per usual the Republicans generated a lot of hot air, wasting everybody's time and money, on totally meaningless bluster and bravado. It's all the GOP does anymore. Quite sad.
But Russia! China! Extreme MAGA Republicans! Democratcy under attack!
Yep, politics is all very sad. But having skimmed the NY doc, gerrymandering is nothing new, especially from the city that gave the world Tammany Hall. But we're IT types. Topology is a thing. So why not take politicians out of the equation? We know NYC's geospatial and legislative boundaries. We (should) know where the people live. So define district as say, 100K people, or the number of districts. Then let the GIS system (call it 'AI' for bonus points) draw the boundaries for each district such that the populations are equal. This is not an especially difficult GIS problem to solve. Then generate say, 5 maps and let politicians pick one. Topology is maths, so easy to verify the system functions correctly. In theory, an incorruptible system that providing the population data is reasonably accurate, can adapt to demographic changes.
Politicians will, of course find ways to corrupt, because that's just what they do.
The perfect troll jumped on Google and search for "gerrymandering" and "democrats" and picked up a link.
So let's go to Wikipedia Gerrymandering!
The 2012 election provides a number of examples of how partisan gerrymandering can adversely affect the descriptive function of states' congressional delegations. In Pennsylvania, for example, Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives received 83,000 more votes than Republican candidates, yet the Republican-controlled redistricting process in 2010 resulted in Democrats losing to their Republican counterparts in 13 of Pennsylvania's 18 districts.
In the seven states where Republicans had complete control over the redistricting process, Republican House candidates received 16.7 million votes and Democratic House candidates received 16.4 million. The redistricting resulted in Republican victories in 73 out of the 107 affected seats; in those seven states, Republicans received 50.4% of the votes but won in over 68% of the congressional districts."
Anymore questions or remarks?
Dude, what part of "ty.pi.cal" don't you understand in "gerrymandering is a typical Republican thing anyway." (which is even in your citation).
Do you also need me to get a Wikipedia source for the difference between "typical" and "exclusively".
I've found this to be a pretty common conservative "debate" tactic. When they start finding themselves on the losing end of a debate, they start either ignoring certain words that blow holes in their argument, or they start playing the dictionary game. That's where they latch onto one specific definition of a word and refuse to acknowledge any other meaning until either you give up because there's no point continuing (at which point they claim they won), or because you forget what the original topic was (at which point they also claim they won). It's pretty easy to tell when they choose to play the dictionary game, because they'll literally quote the dictionary... but only the definition that best supports their argument, or supports yours the least, all other definitions cease to exist, and don't even get them started on how context can change the meaning of words.
I've found this to be a pretty common conservative "debate" tactic. When they start finding themselves on the losing end of a debate, they start either ignoring certain words that blow holes in their argument, or they start playing the dictionary game.
Yes, and there'll be an absolute bloodbath! Problem is lefty trolls such as yourself appear to be functionally illiterate.. So what I said was-
Meanwhile, gerrymandering is ongoing, eg importing illegal immigrants in a hope they'll become future Democrat voters..
Then along came an anonymong with-
Dude, what part of "ty.pi.cal" don't you understand in "gerrymandering is a typical Republican thing anyway." (which is even in your citation).
Except.. it wasn't. I never mentioned typical, that was not my quote nor anything I've cited. So you're projecting again, and it was the anonymong who started playing the dictionary game. But I can also play that game, sort of. So per wiki-
The manipulation may involve "cracking" (diluting the voting power of the opposing party's supporters across many districts) or "packing" (concentrating the opposing party's voting power in one district to reduce their voting power in other districts)
Gerrymandering is not just about redrawing boundaries. So both parties have been doing this, to a greater or lesser extent. Republicans have been shipping ilegal immigrants to 'Democratic' sanctuary cities like NYC or DC.. who promptly try to move them on to Republican towns and cities. The assumption being that the illegals will be grateful and vote Democrat. Polls often show the opposite, ie immigrants often have more conservative values and have fled tin pot dictatorships where they've suffered under puppets installed by the US. Hello, Haiti! There's also the small matter that illegal immigrants are, well, illegal. Texas briefly won a ruling that they could obey the law and arrest and deport illegals. The Dems objected, and said 'That's our job!' and a Federal matter.. but the Fed isn't doing anything to protect US borders, or uphold the laws they're sworn to uphold..
And then of course there's election integrity, the legal right to vote and willfully ignoring that by rejecting attempts to implement voter ID, and better voter registration hygiene..
"I never mentioned typical, that was not my quote nor anything I've cited."
It was the word of the AC you responded to, and a rather important keyword in the conversation. As you are undoubtedly fully aware. Were you taking the conversation out of context and twisting it to your own purpose, again? Typical.
Deflection doesn't make you look important, rather it makes you look silly ... and it becomes mind-numbingly boring when it is so predictable.
And of course, lying by omission is still lying. Do you want to be known as an intentional liar?
It was the word of the AC you responded to, and a rather important keyword in the conversation. As you are undoubtedly fully aware. Were you taking the conversation out of context and twisting it to your own purpose, again? Typical.
Err.. No. I realise tech stuff can seem complicated, but if you use the nested thread view, you should see that I did not respond to that AC. I replied to you, and included your quote to provide context.. So who's twisting, hmm?
And of course, lying by omission is still lying. Do you want to be known as an intentional liar?
Where have I lied? My regular anonymong does this frequently, but that's their style. And they're obviously too embarrassed to actually register and put a name to their lies. But such is politics. Can't construct a coherent response, resort to ad homs and strawmen instead.
Funny that. You have a global pandemic of an airborne virus, with people dying by the thousands every day, with a few assholes who refuse to take basic precautions to prevent the spread of this disease because "ma freedumb," and you wonder why they were being blamed? Maybe they were being blamed because they were, I don't know, AT FAULT! They were willfully doing things that put other people's lives in mortal danger. It's not really all that different from taking a gun to a crowded shopping mall and firing it off indiscriminately. Doesn't matter if you're aiming at anyone in particular, the mere fact that you're discharging a firearm in a crowded place is enough to endanger the lives of others around you. If I had my way, those people would be charged with something like aggravated manslaughter or even second degree murder. One count for every person they came in close contact with.
If they don't want to take a vaccine that will give them better odds of surviving an infection, fine, darwinism works in mysterious ways, but I absolutely draw the line when these selfsame people decide they are going to endanger other people's lives. Though, I would also say that emergency rooms the world over should be free to turn these people away, or at least charge them extortionist rates. Any time you expect someone to go above and beyond what is necessary (i.e. the amount of effort needed to save the life of an unvaccinated person vs vaccinated) that absolutely should carry a premium. In the UK, the NHS should come after you for whatever they paid the hospital and more.
It’s not and never has been a horse tranquilliser. It’s a dissociative anaesthetic. It’s used for induction of anaesthesia in vet medicine because its cardiovascular side effects - or lack thereof - are beneficial when you’re knocking out 600kg of horse. You might have it yourself if you’re involved in major trauma for the same reasons. But that’s not the same as no side effects, and as people who have used it recreationally might be able to testify there can be psychological implications. This is beyond Michael Jackson territory (who was misusing propofol, another anaesthetic).
Was described as a horse tranquilliser by the paramedics that lifted my mate out of the gutter twenty-odd years ago, but what would they know. To be fair I’m not sure they were that keen on a nuanced discussion at the time.
More horribly, it was also used as a dental anaesthetic on children at one point. Frankly even as a grown man the old special K was a tough few hours, having to endure it aged ten with a man drilling into your teeth doesn’t bear thinking about.
I use it for procedural sedation for children routinely, safely and successfully.
Yes, it has risks: hypersalivation, tachycardia, increased ICP and IOP, emergence phenomena. They can be managed, usually by premedication, and are rare enough that the risks are less than the bigger risks of a typical anaesthetic like propofol or volatiles. Having, for example, an appendix removed under nothing but ketamine is not unheard of in remote areas or where access to hospital theatre standard is not available or impractical.
Its starring attributes are the protection of airway reflexes, its single agent achievement of the anaesthetic triad and its cardiostability. No other single agent comes close, even inhalation induction.
Personally I prefer IV over IM because the pharmacokinetics of IM is more like an infusion, so the redistribution phase is much more prolonged. However, the IV access itself can sometimes be more traumatising than the procedure itself - that's a judgement call.
Observing someone having it is peculiar. In particular the nystagmus and occasional vocalisation. Warn parents in advance and they won't freak out when it happens. It's not traumatic, except vicariously. The one advantage to that is you know for sure when dissociation has kicked in.
Some treatments, usually chronic pain related, involve gradually escalating an infusion until dissociation occurs, then stopping. The theory is that pain mediating neurotransmitters "wind up", and ketamine can wind them down again.
It can see how it would be easy to confuse recreational and therapeutic experiences (the "set and setting"). For recovery, dark, quiet rooms with familiar voices are good at preventing emergence phenomena - more of a happy dream than a scary nightmare. Take it out of the controlled surroundings of a critical care environment and it shows its mean streak.
As an NMDA antagonist it is an analgesic in subdissociative doses (up to 0.5mg/kg), and progressively becomes an anaesthetic at higher doses. It is also a horse tranquiliser, for the same reasons. Mammals share a lot of physiology. Who'd'a thunk it?
> I use it for procedural sedation for children routinely, safely and successfully.
That's good to hear. Well, presuming that you're a medical professional, otherwise it's fairly problematic.
> For recovery, dark, quiet rooms
I came to the same conclusion myself.
Joking aside, I read a piece a while back on the use of large dose of Ketamine to treat chronic pain syndrome, the disease I fear the most. And I can confirm recreationally at least, despite it clearly not agreeing with me at the time I later felt none of the mood swings associated with the other biochemical experiments in my 20s. So yes, both useful and in a class of its own.
"More horribly, it was also used as a dental anaesthetic on children at one point."
Is that the one that leads to those YouTube videos of children that are left unbelievably high after a wisdom teeth removal job?
If so, what the actual hell? Is/was that sort of thing normal in America?
When I had my wisdom teeth out, I was given a bunch of local injections (ugh, I hate needles) to knock out the pain. No sedation, fully awake the entire time. And really wishing I wasn't for a couple of hours after the anaesthetic wore off, but that didn't last for too long, and wasn't unexpected.
I dare say it depends very much on the patient, the procedure, the doctors, and the era. Anesthesia practices change over time.
I had oral surgery as a child, to correct a non-descending incisor, and was given general anesthesia. I was maybe 10 years old?
I had several other oral surgeries of various complexity — removing an extra adult-tooth bud before it developed, removing my bicuspids (aka "premolars"), endodontic surgery (root canal), and so on — as a child and an adult, and those were done with local anesthesia.
I still have my "wisdom teeth", but I had a set of impacted extranumerary molars (additional molars past the wisdom teeth) all 'round that needed to come out, and that was done with local, but it was a long and involved process and I would not have wanted to endure it as a child. Not painful as such but potentially dismaying, particularly when the surgeon had his knee braced on the chair getting the upper-left one out. (He said it was going in his trophy case, but apparently that was just a joke, unfortunately.)
Certainly medical professionals are not always right, and medical practices are not always good. But I'm reluctant to second-guess them and make sweeping statements about what might or might not be appropriate, at least without studying actual relevant research.
It's also strongly implicated in the death of my partner; giving it to someone with PTSD and who has known problems with dissociation as a result is a bad idea, forcing her to take it seemed positively malicious. Her actual death was caused by barbiturates (and their origin was never discovered thanks to the coroner refusing to hear any evidence, but probably the same source) but being discharged when still traumatised and then additionally disoriented by ketamine probably helped pull the trigger.
I dunno why people take this sort of stuff recreationally. :|
"To be fair, a serious journalist should probably have known better than to sit down with Musk and expect the agreement to remain intact, yet the interview shows that while you can take a man out of CNN, it is considerably harder to take CNN out of a man."
I mean, of course he knew this.
He comes out ahead either way. Musk cans him - he gets a bunch of publicity and looks like a hero (current situation). Musk doesn't can him - he still looks like a hard-talking interviewer, and he still has a deal for his show.
There really wasn't a downside for Lemon anywhere in this. He knew what he was doing.
Official Tucker Carlson YouTube page.
“Following CNN's Don Lemon comments that "we're living in two different realities" as black and white people, Tucker Carlson revealed on Fox News Monday night that Lemon lives in $4.3 million home in an area of New York that is 80 percent white and just 3 percent African American.”