DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus cognitive decline

1. What does that have to do with anything I stated and when did you state it? What holds no validity? You didn't address anything I wrote. You were talking about the future but you want to change it to now, now? My "comment" was about this election, so one sentence out of the four you wrote is true.

2. "And you, charlatan, are no Reagan!" (closest I could get to a "fire starter")

3. Falls short of what? What claim about metaphysics? Trump or Biden winning may become the reality. It is not the reality now. You clearly don't comprehend metaphysics.

Words are wasted on you. *Sigh*

You can give a man a torch, but he'll go back to stumbling in the dark if he immediately plunges it into the stagnant water of his preconceived notions.

Is this another example of you assuming that you know something that you actually don't?

(link)

Did you forget what you posted?

We aren't talking about the future. We are talking about this years election. Hopefully that will clear things up for you. And no, with the time constraints and qualifications needed to get on the ballot, much less win the election, the only two choices that have any chance of being elected this year are trump or biden.

Once and for all — trees do not explode

Then the President talked about exploding trees:

“But with regard to the forest, when trees fall down after a short period of time, about 18 months, they become very dry, they become really like a match stick and they get up you know there’s no more water pouring through and they become very, very they just explode. They can explode.”

The myth of exploding trees may have originated with a classic film about wildfires, “Red Skies of Montana” which showed firefighters being harassed by exploding trees, thanks to movie magic. Then the book “Young Men and Fire” mentioned “the occasional explosion of a dead tree”.

In my 33 years of fighting wildland fires I never saw or heard a tree explode, and I don’t know a reputable firefighter that has.

In 2016 after the late Senator John McCain talked about the Chedeski and Wallow fires in Arizona and “trees literally exploding as the fuels that have accumulated around the bases of the trees burns up,” I reached out to the firefighter community asking if anyone had ever seen a tree explode. No one said they had.

When lightning strikes a tree it can explode when the moisture inside is converted to steam in a millisecond. And maple trees can explode in below freezing temperatures when the sap freezes. There are unconfirmed reports that eucalyptus trees in Australia can explode in a fire but I’m not convinced this is true. I understand that heated gasses or sap can shoot out of a crack in a eucalyptus tree and can be ignited during a fire.

https://wildfiretoday.com/2020/09/15/once-and-for-all-trees-do-not-explode/

Tree Die-Offs Won’t Increase Wildfire Risk, Expert Says

https://www.kvpr.org/environment/2016-07-26/tree-die-offs-wont-increase-wildfire-risk-expert-says

I didn't forget what I posted. It just doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.

The election takes place in November. It is June. The election takes place in the future. Are we talking about the election or not?

A lot can change in a day, a week. Nevermind "half" a year.

I can't decide if you're being intentionally "dense" as a performance in a sad attempt to rile me or if you legitimately don't realize how nonsensical your arguments are.

Your second link literally talks about exploding trees.

The last paragraph of the article you quoted also mentions cases of exploding trees.

Gotta love partisan firefighters giving quotes.

You've never had wood "explode" in a bonfire? Do you burn much resinous wood (pine/fir/others)?

How much firefighting have you done? Have you ever worn an SCBA? Or are you solely relying on something you read on the internet again?

We are talking about this election, not future elections. So please, if you can, give a realistic timeline on the events and how anyone at this stage of the game could possibly reach both the time constraints and qualifications needed to win this coming presidential election. It's quite convenient of you to say the election is six months away even though it's less than that, but that doesn't address the timetable or needed qualifications to get on the ballot.

Here are just a some examples of the filing deadline that Independent candidates must meet to be placed on state ballots. In a vast number of states an Independent candidate has less than tweo months to get on their states ballots....

Alabama 8/23/24

Arizona 8/17/24

California 8/9/24

In all of those cases alone a candidate has less than two months, not six months....

Then there are the states where there is less than a month for an independent candidate to get on the ballot.....

Colorado 7/11/24

Florida 7/15/24

Georgia 7/9/24

Michigan 7/18/24

Nevada 7/5/24

And so on...... Your 6 month timetable is quite flawed.

There are 36 states that have less than two months remaining left to make the ballot. Of those 36 there are 11 with less than a month left, some with just days left with which to file and out of those 11 there are two states, New York and North Carolina where it's already too late to file.

https://ballotpedia.org/Deadline_to_run_for_president,_2024

Well of course any firefighter that doesn't repeat the conservative talking points must be a liberal. Mentioning exploding trees doesn't mean it says those trees explode.

33 years less than the firefighter who said these trees don't explode has. And you?

So, none for you. I did 4 years on hose teams. That was more than enough. Fire is no joke.


Specifying steam when talking about trees not "exploding" is one thing. Colloquially, "exploding" is an easily understood description of what can happen.

With all the stupid stuff Trump says, this feels like a strange thing to single out.

Were they wildfires which is the topic here? Do you have any experience fighting wildfires? Context matters.

Pointing it out is just another check mark on the laundry list. It's odd that you only say this to people that make comments about trump and never biden though. If you wish to point out oddities.

I thought the topic here was cognitive decline. Or did you forget?

Yeah, that's what your reply was about that I'm addressing. It seems you have become very forgetful about what you have been posting as of late.

Just as a reminder.....


I'm hoping that helps you recall.

My recall is fine. It's your arguments that are forgettable. Or at least they are so bad that one hopes one can forget them. Your repeating my post is welcome if you want/need to read it again.

There it is. I stand by it.

This is your typical retort when you have nothing left to add. I gave you proof that you were no longer discussing cognitive decline. You didn't like that so all you had left to do is lash out childishly. I'm not surprised by that.

Anything else to say about the upcoming election and an Independent candidate having the ability to meet those deadlines to get on state ballots?

What's Ironic about Character Matters?

Everything you wrote around it.

In other words, you don't know

Trump’s entire stump speech is simply insane, yet OLD JOE is the threat… clueless & cuckoo for coco puffs. Defeating MAGA and ridding our homeland of this fascist threat should be the highest priority of everyone in any position in our government. Else, our POTUS in 28 could look much like the brainiac that is MTG.

People like MTG and AOC are stalking horses for the party. Trot out and let em say stupid stuff. The extreme edges love it, everyone else realizes how less extreme other members sound.

No, I'm saying that saying "NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY OR HOW YOU SAY IT OR ABOUT WHOM" shows a poor character trait. I also think Biden's character, while better than Trump's by miles, is more of the he's a character than he has character variety.

That is a great theory if only the freedom caucus didn't have such a stranglehold on the Republican party.

Don’t compare MTG to AOC! What the hell is qwrong with you? AOC has a brain, MTG doesn’t.

Think it's more about everybody getting distracted away from how bad the other politicians are than realizing how they are "better"/less extreme.

Of course, they try to spin it the way you wrote there.

Not disagreeing with you so much as adding to.

"Yes, we're awful but look at them." "If you're not with us, you're one of them." The only two choice comparison framing is rather pervasive and irritates the hell out of me. This mindset feels very "un-American" and anti-individual freedom. (Though I'm starting to get a bit away from what you were saying.)

You may be more right than how I said it.

Regardless, who but a politician will spend $6m to get get a job making $174k/year and still use the phrase "common sense" with a straight face.

All kinds of con artists.

...It's usually not their money they are spending.

It's almost NEVER their money they are spending. It's donations.

This country is beyond screwed when you get right down to it. Not saying R's or D's. The debt. Will Kill Us. Period. The end.

You can't raise taxes high enough to get out of the hole we're in. Simple truth. Cut spending, drastically, but we 'can't', cause so many rely on the gov't.

Politicians also can't keep handing out huge tax cuts when your politicians keep complaining they can't pay our nation's bills.

And you're right about donations too. One man alone just donated 50 million dollars to one of the presidential candidates. Most people will believe, and rightfully so, that there will be something expected in return for that.

Don't worry Biden can just forgive the debt.

It wouldn't be a debt that helps young people who have been addled by debt at the beginning of their adult life so I doubt he would be interested.

Something certainly seems addled there.

Depending on your perspective I suppose.

You mean self imposed debt?

My daughter is making her payments. My son paid off all of his, even for his masters. And I have 2 nephews that decided college wasn't for them so they had no debt and both are making great money in the trades right now.

Why should I have to pay for someone elses self imposed debt? Why should YOU have to pay for someone else's self imposed debt?

Yes it's self imposed debt. And you certainly have the right to look at it that way. But then why should we be paying the bills while corporations have continued to get huge tax breaks for decades now as politicians keep complaining we can't pay our own nation's bills? There are a lot of instances we could point to where the average person is footing the bill for others and I don't blame you for seeing it that way. As long as we consider all such instances as being equal. Then there's also the fact that corporations can easily afford to pay their taxes while many young people have trouble paying their student loans.

Do you have any idea where corporations get their money?

Can you explain why that would excuse them paying a similar percentage of taxes as their employees? Can you explain how continuing cutting their taxes over and over again while the national deficit is so high has helped the economy? Every tax payer gets their money by earning it, their retirement plan and or Social Security which they have paid into and earned. Can you explain why major corporations should keep getting treated better than the rest of us?

The major difference I see here is that forgiving student debt gives young people the ability to buy a honse, a new car, start a family and begin a life that helps stimulate the economy. While that's not true of corporate tax cuts.

But I get it. Putting it in the pocket of big business seems more acceptable to you when the fact is all of that money comes out of the same pile no matter who you choose to gift it to. And that's exactly what both are. A huge gift given.

All the employees of corporations get taxed. Putting money in the pockets of big business (actually just not taking it out) allows them to pay more employees which are taxed and spend their earnings "stimulating the economy." (Now if you want to argue executive salaries that's something else)

Forgiving young people's debt teaches them bad lessons and creates individuals reliant on the government teat. Forgiving debt allows young people to spend more money they don't have on more things they can't afford- Much like the government itself. It's a lousy practice that the government is trying to normalize because the house of cards is likely to collapse otherwise.

The good ol' trickle down economics theory.
Proven time and time again to not work.

Corporations do not hire employees they don't need. That is a myth. Only demand causes them to hire more people to keep up with that demand. You can only create demand by putting money in the hands of the consumer with which they can spend to create demand. Once again all you have done is makes excuse why employees of a corporation continue to pay a higher burden than the corporations themselves.

Do you really believe that corporations simply hire more workers they don't need because they got a tax cut? I'm not sure how that can be while we've all watched corporations get big tax breaks over the past decades while downsizing and outsourcing employees.

I'm not really arguing your second paragraph. My point is simply pointing fingers about that and not pointing fingers in both directions seems rather pointless. If we're going to expect accountability in one direction let's expect it from both directions.

Yeah, and in the thread about the economy you were bragging about how corporate profits were doing so well.

Pick a side, and stick to it. Quit picking and choosing how you feel based on what thread you're in. Oh, and maybe a hobby would be nice.