Sorry, I meant sloppy AI.
“Most Americans watch PBS” is statistical fan fiction.
Actual monthly regular PBS TV viewers:
about 25–35 million adults
(that’s Nielsen-style “watched at least some PBS this month")
Actual core audience (people who watch PBS on purpose):
Around 5–10 million.
Prime-time PBS audience at any moment:
1–3 million, on a good night
Here’s the most complete version of the letter text that’s been reported (originally sent to Norway’s Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre and then shared with other European governments):
“Dear Jonas:
Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they even have ownership in the first place? There are no written documents, only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but our boats also landed there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland.
Thank you!
President DJT”**
This is a great example of material from a second-hand source, no doubt taken up by news agencies as "verified by an expert"
PBS has a tiny audience share by modern standards. We’re talking single-digit percentages of Americans in any given week. There are individual YouTubers pulling more daily viewers than PBS gets in prime time. That alone should set off alarm bells when someone says “many Americans trust PBS.” 90+ percent of Americans don't even listen to it. PBS isn’t widely trusted; it’s deeply trusted by a few people.
And pretending that’s a credible skeptic metric representative of the entire country is just sloppy academic laundering.
quite literally I am the one saying not ban her. I’m not sure what you are trying to ask me
This is why discussion with supposedly "free-minded" individuals today is so frustrating. Trump has driven them so crazy that they are eating their own with unnecessary "purity tests" and accusations of "maga"
You can't even agree with them without their self-flagellations whipping you in the face as collateral damage....
I'm glad you came back alive.
Please remember not to FAFO. You can let ICE know you are pissed from a healthy distance.
Racists are fond of saying that because race doesn't exist biologically, this means racism doesn't exist, but that is just a manifestation of the stupidity of racisM.
You were so close, but off by one simple letter.
But you Americans believe in ghosts and angels, too, so that goes in the same category.
If you could go back in time and put ghosts and angels into your constitution, I am sure you would.
Cool, now go tell a SCOTUS judge what exactly makes you a certain race and how a Law Enforcement Officer can legally know for certain what race you are by eyesight.
It has to be an exact legal definition that drives specific law enforcement. It can’t be vibes, assumptions, or ‘most people use skin color.’
Just change it to Biden Island, and nobody will talk about the files for 4 years.
You guys can't define race, but that still doesn't stop you from invoking your 15th amendment
That's not true, he quietly dropped out of politics in 2000 and 2012 because your media refused to give him any oxygen.
Just give him some shiny medals, pat him on the head, say good boy. And move on.
Appear-
2. seem; give the impression of being.
"she appeared not to know what was happening"
I suppose I should revise my comment to "in the land of the illiterate, a person with a 5th-grade vocabulary must seem like a walking dictionary."
See, all you had to do was give him medals, and he would have just retired quietly.
And I'm guessing that you are Superman who is competent in all fields.
In the land of the blind, a one-eyed man appears to be superhuman.
...and the rest must be part of the trump cult?
You Americans are so obsessed with the word cult and rarely ever use it in the correct context. It's like you actively avoid any avenue of meaningful discussion for the sake of...what exactly?
And if you can't answer that, then normal people already know what your starting point is in every discussion.
BTW, this is a great example of a modern push-poll.
It's a textbook example of a modern push poll. Partisan actors design the question using loaded language like “invade” or "take over" to predetermine the emotional response, then report the result as public opinion. The poll isn’t measuring attitudes or thoughtful opinions; it’s actively manufacturing them, and then using that manufactured consensus to constrain future discussions about strategic partnerships, base leasing, and other agreements with Greenland as if the issue were already settled by the majority.
Endangering our allies doesnt just weaken us militarily. It also weakens us economically as we become isolated from our alliances.
Your allies actually endanger you when they don't send enough military to control buffer zones. It invites foreign aggression against the USA.
Plus China and Russia barely peak their head past the passage up there. And they are not showing signs of build up in greenland area economically. I did see China try to build and airport there as that seems to be there strategy of taking over the west incrementally.
That's always how it starts.
I'm sure it had words like invade instead of annex, or form a strategic partnership with the USA.
That's how you spin the narrative to weak minds.
I don't know what you're asking from me, I already told you the best compromise if you insist on supporting the self-licking icecream cone of endless subsidies and rationing for poor people.
The idea that people MUST have a system where there is a binary choice to either pay or go without is an archaic system that should have died with Stalin long ago.
I'd really like to see a foil to Alan Lichtman, a wildly over-credentialed and media-elevated partisan hack that sacrificed every shred of integrity to signal a Harris win.
Maybe Dr Oz? Or maybe Dr. Oz was too honest about being an entertainer instead of a walking encyclopedia of all things?
I am surprised if left-wing media reports that. Usually, they are busy creating fanfiction with 1-minute clipart.
I would love to hear your examples of fake experts from your opposing religion. But that audience is the polar opposite, I would assume, for assigning virtue to unvetted credentials.
Lying through omission reached a fever peak with the Biden narratives. People trust community notes more than anything now.
A large system adds economy of scale and could be done even cheaper
That's exactly the opposite of what's going in in India and China because the populations are too spread out to be centrally managed well. Economies of scale only work in a dynamic and responsive free market. Healthcare is the worst possible experiment for centralized scale because demand is hyper-local, constantly changing, and reliant on local info. In places like USA, China, and India, centralized systems focus on quotas of things like paper, beds, clinics, and vaccinations, but they struggle badly with quality, responsiveness, and allocation. USA tossed out millions of vaccine doses under their centralized Covid rollout. A collective health ministry can decide how many hospitals to build, but for the small but critical details, it cannot know which village needs a cardiologist instead of an OB, or which incentive or compensation will keep doctors from fleeing rural posts.
And then everyone stands around wondering why the numbers looked so good right up until the moment they didn’t. Stalin's "5-year plans" might work for small communities, but not a sprawling empire.
Peeps such as yourself just aren't convinced based on facts from scientific study
Look up scientific studies that correlate a poor diet with increased healthcare demand. Science demands it.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2827550
It's another case of positive rights conflicting with negative rights.
Title IX is fundamentally a negative right: it restricts institutions from discriminating on the basis of sex. The fact that compliance requires funding makes it look like a positive right, but the spending is really an enforcement consequence, not the right itself. Women’s sports exist because institutions were prohibited from allowing male participation to erase female categories. That was the defined negative right. Redefining sex to include male bodies removes that negative right, essentially removing the protected category and nullifying the original purpose of Title IX. The trans group is demanding a new positive right where the original law never created, and that positive right necessarily destroys the rights of biological women, essentially doing the very thing Title IX was designed to prevent. The erasure of a space for biological women only.
My parents, my faith, and my society, they all taught me to respect others, maybe I don't understand the animosity because nobody told me there was an "unless they are too different" exception to the respect rule.
This isn't really a kindness issue, though. It's a compromise issue. If a framework can't be established where the only framework is a binary choice that exists to either have animosity toward biological women or animosity toward trans women, then the framework itself is "unkind."
It’s really a tradeoff problem. When two groups have mutually exclusive needs, pretending there’s only a binary choice for a solution leaves no room for respect.
the promise was "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", it's the first one.
If society redefines that list from what the American founders clearly defined as a negative right (the state may not arbitrarily take your life) into a positive right (the state must actively preserve your life), then the entire rights framework collapses. A positive right to life or healthcare necessarily requires state enforcement, regulation, and control over others’ behavior and resources under socialism. That control is practically incompatible with liberty as your founders understood it.
The founding framework only works because life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were conceived as negative rights. Redefine even one of them, and your Constitution stops upholding rights and becomes a contradiction. Your biggest obstacle to socialism is, ironically, your constitution, built around negative rights that prevent the creation of many positive rights.
I believe that the only real obstacle to success is that we lack the resolve to make it happen.
Good luck with repealing all those amendments.
Well, enjoy your favorite flavor of self-licking ice cream then. I told you what the best compromise was, and you ignored it.
I already gave the compromise that actually shrinks the loop: subsidize those below the poverty line, let everyone else operate in a competitive market. You ignored it and went back to defending the cone. As if the cone is a sacred cow, endlessly providing sacred cream, and anyone pointing out the calories is committing heresy.
🍦🍦🍦
🍦🍦🍦
I agree that obamacare poured fuel on the fire but that dont mean universal care is inherently bad. Amiright?
Not really. Other nations use aggressive cap pricing on healthcare, which translates to rationing. The way those countries operate is they ration the healthcare up to the point where people complain, then they subsidize it again till they stop complaining, then they go back to rationing to keep the costs down, and the cycle repeats. It's simply a slower self-licking cone.
A far better idea was floated long ago, where only those below the poverty line can get subsidized health care, and the rest have the markets compete for their healthcare dollars, keeping prices affordable by design. This makes the self-licking ice cream cone much smaller, even without aggressive price caps and rationing on healthcare, since only a small portion of the nation is taking advantage of tax-funded subsidies, assuming the government can put a lid on illegal migration and prevent fraudulent Healtcare centers next to all the Learing centers.
