Just tell them you’re contagious, and don’t want to pass it on to them.

Dark Brandon’s Final Showdown.

As shepherds we shall be…

Yeasts are fungi, not plants. Fungi are more closely related to animals than plants.

The French had no other means of achieving their objectives in 1789. They didn’t have a democracy. They didn’t have the ability to eliminate their “billionaires” by taking their billions. They could only get rid of their “billionaires” by taking their heads.

Unlike the French Revolutionaries, we have the framework of a functioning democracy already established. It’s currently broken and non-functional, but it exists.

We don’t need the guillotine, but we do need the mindset, the attitude, the commitment that the revolutionaries had when they decided to use the only tool they had available to them.

Tuesday, Biden is scheduled to meet patients in the Super-COVID ward at Walter Reed.

First off, Some mod is reading “Guillotine Party” and thinking I’m advocating violence. I’m not. I’m advocating a French Revolution, where the third estate takes their nation back from the oligarchs of the second estate.

Just as the modern Tea Party adopted historical symbolism to identify and rally people to their cause of action, we should use the most visible symbol of the French Revolution to focus our own efforts against wealth disparity: the guillotine.

Why don’t we just take the party from them or make our own with blackjack, hookers, and abortion

That is exactly what the Tea Party did to the GOP, and that is exactly what we need to be doing to the Democratic Party. We need to destroy billionaires, not by removing their heads, but by removing their billions. Every cent they aren’t spending is a loss of income to a worker, and a loss of income tax to the government. We are all paying a higher portion of our earnings to give them the privilege of extracting wealth from the economy.

They had their Tea Party. It’s time for our Guillotine Party, to address the problems created by the Second Estate.

The Democratic National Committee needs to get the fuck out of the way. Democratic leadership needs to get the fuck out of the way. The Democratic electorate needs to throw them the fuck out, and start making a shopping list.

• Universal Health Care. True universal healthcare; none of this ACA bullshit.

• Securities tax. Own more than $10 million in stocks and bonds, we’re taking 1% of those shares every year, and slowly liquidating them at auction. Auctioned shares will comprise no more than 1% of total traded volume. You don’t get to just sit on those assets any more. You have to put them to work, where they will generate taxable income, or they will be taken from you.

If any member of the second estate has a problem with universal healthcare or a wealth tax, 18th century France came up with the solution.

Removed by mod

Something, something, shoulder thing that goes up.

I don’t know why everybody focuses so much on the top of the wing. Relative to ambient air, the pressure above the wing is slightly reduced, but the pressure below the wing is massively increased. That massive increase is far more important than the slight reduction above.

We know this, because simple, flat airfoils are capable of flight. Think: paper airplanes, simple balsa models, etc.

The shape of the airfoil is not actually very important for lift. You can make a brick produce plenty enough lift to maintain its altitude, if you can provide sufficient thrust and control it’s attitude.

The specific shape of the airfoil is primarily important for minimizing drag across a variety of speeds and angles of attack at various loadings. This is where the top surface of the wing becomes important. By maintaining the flow over the wing, drag is reduced, and controllability is maintained.

There’s no law “banning” that. You’re talking about the 12th amendment revising the electoral process so that the VP is elected in a separate EC election, rather than being the runner up in the presidential election.

That same 12th amendment requires, when a presidential candidate does not have 270 votes, to select the president from the top three candidates based on number of EC votes. If Trump strokes out after they cast their votes on December 17th, no candidate will have received 270 votes. When they go to count the votes on January 6th, the only valid EC votes cast for president will have been cast for Harris, so we get a Harris/Vance ticket.

The Republicans could spend one vote on Vance for President, allowing the House to vote for him. But then a similar situation happens in the Senate with Walz, and the Senate only gets to choose between the top two VP candidates based on EC votes. We could theoretically end up with a Vance/Walz administration.

A California lawyer trying to win a centrist campaign is like Tiger Woods trying to win a World Series ring. Harris wasn’t the right person to run a centrist campaign. But, if she had run a progressive campaign from July, she would have won the popular vote and still lost the election. She wouldn’t have gotten past a primary.

Elizabeth Warren would have been a better progressive choice. Mark Kelly could have run a progressive or a centrist campaign.

We’re primed for a leftist version of the Tea Party. A Guillotine party.

Don’t launch it into the sun. There’s a perfectly good Mar a Lago down in Florida.

That would be intentional. They’d have to screw with the timeline for counting the EC votes if Trump kicks it between December 17th and January 6th. Otherwise, the House would be obligated to create a Harris/Vance administration.

That’s what they were aiming for. It didn’t work.

A California lawyer is not the candidate you want when you run to the right. Harris would have won the popular vote if she ran left, but she still would have lost the swing states, and thus the election.

If you want to win the swing states, you need to pick a Democrat from a swing state or a red state. Mark Kelly would have won with Harris’s campaign.

You failed, repeatedly, to acknowledge developmental psychology 101

I have acknowledged developmental psychology, repeatedly. I have rejected your characterization of not-fully-mature frontal cortex as exculpatory.

You would have a point if we were talking about an average 4-year-old, or a developmentally delayed 12-year old. Not an uninstitutionalized 15-year-old. Even a rather slow 15-year-old has sufficient mental capacity to comprehend extreme violence, and all the evidence says this kid wasn’t extraordinarily stunted.

Immaturity is reasonable when discussing crimes involving substantially higher degrees of mental abstraction. Not intentional murder.

The approach you should be taking isn’t that he is immature. The approach you should be taking is one that would apply to even a mature adult.

And I suppose you’re a neuroscientist, behavioural psychologist, and generally smarter than literally every single person working in juvenile justice.

This is another ad hominem, disguised as an appeal to authority.

No. I was describing your character

Correct. You were describing me, rather than discussing the issue. That is, by definition. An “argumentum ad hominem”. It is an “argument against the man” rather than an argument regarding the issue under discussion.