US Election

Is this the best thread ever and the other poxy international thread should be closed

  • Yes because I’m a winner

  • No because I’m a loser

Results are only viewable after voting.

Remove this Banner Ad

Eagleboy2011 said:
You vote for woke communist governments and that's what you get.

Newscum is literally lying to this distressed woman.



"I'm literally talking to the president right now I have tried 5x thats why I am walking around to make the call." She caught him in a lie. He tells her he’s on the phone with the president. She asks to hear the call and gets caught lying to her, changing his story to, “I’m trying to call him. Which is it?"
He can’t answer the question about the water hydrants being dry because he helped create the problem.

Click to expand...

 

Log in to remove this ad.

​

LA wildfires: Celebs in line of fire as homes destroyed, under threat​

Mel Gibson’s home has been under threat, and he would be “surprised” if it’s still there. Now he’s lashed out at mismanagement and pointed the finger.

Mel Gibson’s home in Malibu has been under threat, and he told podcast star Joe Rogan about the state of his neighbourhood. He said he would be “surprised if my home is still there”.

“[My son] sent me a video of my neighborhood and it’s in flames,” he said.

“It looks like an inferno.”

Gibson said he does have another home in Costa Rica, but has sought to lay blame on California Governor Gavin Newsom for the damage from the LA wildfires.

“I got a place in Costa Rica—I love it there,” he said.

“I think Newsom said ‘I’m gonna take care of the forest and maintain the forest and do all that kinda stuff’—he didn’t do anything,” Gibson said.

He agreed with Rogan’s assertion about California putting put tax dollars toward supporting the homeless instead of preventing the fires.

Gibson added: “I think all our tax dollars probably went to Gavin’s hair gel.”
Click to expand...
 
kirky said:
A train wreck can mean a lot of different outcomes.

For example, if Trump brings in his of tariffs that increase prices, stop interest rates from dropping, cost jobs and sees overall inflation increase (which all economics advised prior to the election these were all possible) then I’m sorry the majority voted for it. Don’t say they weren’t warned. There are repercussions from your actions - accept responsibility and accountability.
Click to expand...

That’s a lot of words without really answering the query.

Still sounds like you are legitimately looking forward to your expected human suffering to the point of celebrating.
 
Eagleboy2011 said:
Only fact with Kirky is whatever Democrats do, no matter how egregious is good.
No matter what Trump or GOP do, it's the end of the world.

Kirky quoting 2021 figures. ;)

Nov 2023

There’s no drought anywhere in California: How long that’s expected to last, and why​

www.latimes.com

There's no drought anywhere in California: How long that's expected to last, and why

Drought has long been the norm for California. But the state had a historically wet winter, and El Niño is threatening again.
www.latimes.com www.latimes.com
"Forecasters have “high confidence” California will stay out of its years-long drought through at least 2025, “and potentially beyond,” due to “the combination of the abundance of rain and snow” last winter and several major storms this winter,” according to AccuWeather meteorologist Ken Clark."

www.forbes.com

California Could Stave Off Drought Through 2025—Reversing Years Of ‘Megadrought,’ Forecasters Say

Nearly 93% of California is completely out of a drought, and only 7% is considered abnormally dry.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
Click to expand...

We are in 2025 not 2023.

www.ksbw.com

Last year, 96% of California was drought-free. A new map is far more grim.

Despite recent rounds of winter rain and powerful waves that pummeled the coastline, most of California is continuing to bake under a deep drought, with over half of the state facing “abnormally dry” conditions at the start of the new year, the U.S. Drought Monitor’s latest map shows.
www.ksbw.com www.ksbw.com

Yeh, no drought 🤣🤣🤣

Good grief.
 
Slippery Pete said:
Thank you for being so gracious about it.

Nope, never said it was a miracle cure. Just said that doctors should’ve been allowed to prescribe it.

However, since you’re so adamant, you shouldn’t have any trouble coming up with receipts about me saying it’s a miracle cure.
Click to expand...

1. You’ve repeatedly posted debunked gibberish lauding ivermectin’s effectiveness as a treatment for COVID, for which there is zero evidence, applying an extraordinarily generous lens to its benefits while ignoring/minimising its side effects (the exact opposite approach you’ve taken to discourse on COVID vaccines - funny that).

Here’s an ELI5 summary on what the evidence actually shows that I posted a while back:
  • Infections can be caused by many different types of microorganisms including parasites, virus, bacteria, fungii, prions, etc.
  • Ivermectin is a very effective anti-parisitic medication used in humans and animals.
  • There's a study which shows that if you dump enough ivermectin into a petri dish filled with SARS-CoV-2 under lab conditions, yes, you will probably kill the virus.
  • If you put this amount of ivermectin into a patient you would likely hospitalise or kill them.
  • Sadly, this is exactly what some people have done - taking dosage prescribed by vets for horses on the advice of their favourite YouTuber or politician when their doctors wouldn't prescribe it for them.
  • All drugs are toxic to humans - the trick is finding the therapeutic dosage window where the drug has benefits but minimal side effects.
  • There are dozens of published studies and meta-analyses on this subject. They have shown that if you reduce the dose of ivermectin to levels that are safe for humans, ivermectin is not effective as a COVID treatment option (it has no therapeutic window).
  • One more time for the idiots at the back - it's not a cover up, it just doesn't work. Move on with your lives.
  • Fortunately, there are effective antiviral medications for COVID (a virus), in addition to steroids etc which are widely available.
Click to expand...

2. The second line of defence in the Slippery Pete ivermectin fanboi armoury has been to repeatedly reference its “Noble” [sic - :)] Prize, which it won for its effectiveness as an anti-parasitic (not antiviral) drug. It goes without saying that referencing its Nobel Prize in the context of COVID-19 is about as daft as saying "insulin is a Nobel Prize honoured drug why don't we use it to cure dementia". I refuse to believe you’re this stupid, so I’m going to have to assume its dishonest grifting.

3. The third line of defence you’ve repeatedly brought up in your impassioned defence of ivermectin has been to wheel out your well rehearsed persecution/victim complex and complain that medicines regulators were conspiring and had supposedly banned everyone from accessing it.

Again, and for the record, my response to you on this - posted last year:

1. Do you think experienced doctors & medical minds should’ve been banned from, or punished for, prescribing off-label drugs?

To quote the FDA at the recent court case you've referenced - “the FDA cannot prohibit off-label use of ivermectin, but this doesn't at all mean that it has been approved by the FDA (for COVID use).”
  • The FDA haven't changed their position.
  • They never banned off-label prescribing of ivermectin in the first place. This isn’t possible to enforce. Functionally they are able to ban promotion of off-label use by manufacturers.
  • They strongly advised consumers and the medical community that ivermectin is not effective or safe as a treatment for COVID (which it isn't). They continue to do this.
  • The manufacturer (Merck) publicly agreed with the FDA on this, and did not seek to market ivermectin as a COVID treatment.
  • A small group of doctors were so upset about this they took the FDA to court complaining that this advice interfered with their ability to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID patients, despite admitting that they continued to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID anyway.
Swing and a miss. Try again.
Click to expand...
Like the FDA, the TGA fulfils the Australian government's legal obligation to regulate medicines and other health technologies and keep consumers safe. Within this remit they restrict access to many medications. You seem to be mistaken in thinking that off-label = open slather for any doctor (even "ingenious ones" 😂) to prescribe any medication to whoever they want.

The TGA do this for a number of reasons. In this instance they cited the lack of any clinical benefit of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID, coupled with increased risk of harm to:
  • people who actually need ivermectin (including remote Indigenous communities) but cannot access it because supply had been exhausted by people incorrectly using it for COVID. National and local shortages were reported at the time.
  • people following bad advice and taking unsafe higher doses of ivermectin unwittingly putting themselves at risk (severe nausea, vomiting, dizziness, liver injury, neurological effects such as dizziness, seizures, coma, etc). Increasing calls to poisons hotlines and hospitalisations for ivermectin overdoses were reported at the time.
  • the broader community through people taking ivermectin incorrectly assuming this would prevent COVID.
Sounds like a reasonable response from our medicines regulator to me, but then my brain isn't sautéed.

Australians could still access ivermectin for the treatment of COVID but this had to be through a specialist. There are countless examples of other drugs that you can only access through a specialist or accredited GP, or drugs that have constrained criteria for prescribing. This isn't new, you're not being persecuted mate.
Click to expand...
 
kirky said:
We are in 2025 not 2023.

www.ksbw.com

Last year, 96% of California was drought-free. A new map is far more grim.

Despite recent rounds of winter rain and powerful waves that pummeled the coastline, most of California is continuing to bake under a deep drought, with over half of the state facing “abnormally dry” conditions at the start of the new year, the U.S. Drought Monitor’s latest map shows.
www.ksbw.com www.ksbw.com

Yeh, no drought 🤣🤣🤣

Good grief.
Click to expand...
The 2023 refers to end of drought as per LA times. Your quote was a direct google cut and paste from 2021.


and
I will repeat the Forbes article as you can't read.
"Forecasters have “high confidence” California will stay out of its years-long drought through at least 2025, “and potentially beyond,” due to “the combination of the abundance of rain and snow” last winter and several major storms this winter,” according to AccuWeather meteorologist Ken Clark.
"
"California has been pounded with torrential rain and major snowfall this winter, including a blizzard last week that dropped up to 10 feet of snow in the Sierra Nevada mountains, and a series of storms leaving behind widespread floods and enough rain in southern California to supply more than 65,000 residents with a year’s worth of water, according to Los Angeles County Public Works.

​

 

Remove this Banner Ad

US Election

Back
Top