ex-President Trump

by Luciom P

the reason is technology which accumulates in a Lamarckian way, while the DNA stays very close to that of the genocidal founders of our species (especially but not uniquely in Europe).

we can track several bottlenecks in male DNA proving a small amount of males murdered all others and took women from different tribes, many many times in history, and we are all descendant from them.

this is probably the most researched example of such events

b

this is echoed in asian dna studies as well

you look at what "ancient china" ie their ancestral land of the loess of the yellow river and it's all historically speaking, always ethnically Han Chinese

you look at the parts of China that are not ancient china, and it's a very different story

take a look at Qin

now Qin itself and the other warring states were the northern half of that map, the southern half were fresh conquests

that section of the South is where you ethnically find "Southern Han"

the difference between Southern Han and Northern Han is only found is the X chromosome, with the Y being where the differentiation comes from - thus implying the men came down there, wiped out or drove off the local males and then bred with the females

likewise, you'll find ancient tombs in modern China where the bodies are redheads or Thai or Vietnamese, Burmese, Korean, etc (mostly unknown though a la the redheads)

their entire history is that of genocide - they would expand and then either kill the locals or force them out to less desirable areas - otherwise, why on earth would the Thai/Vietnamese willingly go live in the jungle

you'll also see that with the ethnic minorities within China, pretty much always in geographically isolated regions of rough terrain that was undesirable

I was wrong!

Wow. I should have worked in the Obama administration to help them make it more popular for states to do the Medicaid expansion thing. On the bright side, people over 100% poverty level income can get large subsidies (and yet close to 2 million are making the financial choice not to). Ironically when Trump failed to get rid of Obamacare he did eliminate tax penalties if you choose to be uninsured so that does explain why a lot of people are choosing to make the financial gamble now.

Still, there are about 25 million US citizens who are uninsured right now (8% of the population) which is an all time low. Prior to Obamacare there were over 50 million uninsured so at least there is progress.

I was also wrong about the number of states that have adopted Medicaid expansion. It is now 42! Though some of the recent Red state adoptees have made it a prerequisite to be working to get Medicaid (and just as a side note these are the same states that are eliminating abortion choices for single moms because pro-life so these same moms who have to have children and won't be able to afford child care if they work now have to work or they can't be insured. And roughly 1 in 800 uninsured people will die each year due to the lack of health insurance - so pro-life unless it has to do with actual humans)

Here is an article that describes differ...

"A research effort concluded that over 8 in 10 individuals who lack insurance are based in a family with an income 400% below the poverty line. This alarming statistic showcases a desperate need for reform that can help increase the number of people on Obamacare."

Democrats have done a bit in 2021-2022 to increase insured during Covid.

But yes, like the Mexican border wall or killing Obamacare, sometimes there just isn't enough support to radically change the current situation (like making sure all Americans are insured) when you control the Senate, Congress and the White House

I don't think the States that aren't covering people below the poverty line will change voluntarily because they are red States that don't believe in Welfare and also because a disproportionate number of people who are affected negatively are Black and Hispanic. If I am not mistaken (and yes apparently I am frequently mistaken) I believe that the Biden administration is trying to remove these Work Requirements from the states ability to reject people from Medicaid (it may be this is being done for those states where there was a ballot initiative voted on to expand Medicaid and then the State's Republican Governor set up the rule that is for working people only...)

Afaik the mom would be covered anyway

The great thing about trump seeking full immunity for presidents is that it will allow him to rape all the women he wants !
Lucky guy, dream come true ….( I’ll specify sarcastic to make sur some here gets it ).

Well he hasn't been convicted of rape yet so why would you say he would now. Feel free to list his rape convictions if I missed one

Imagine trying to flex that he was only found civilly liable for and not criminally convicted of rape.

Either way, he was found to have done it by a court of law.

Yeah, "Hes not a rapist (yet), just a convicted serial diddler" probably isn't the flex you seem to think it might be

I rest my case 😀

I’m just saying the implication of what trump trying to imply .
But anyway I suggest u watch a movie with Clint Eastwood-> absolute power .

There is a huge difference between civilly liable and criminally convicted . I think the burden of proof in NY is 60%

Really, not 51% plaintiff's burden of proof?

So you think the 10 States that the Mississippi runs through should all have different regulations on toxic dumping into waterways? And this would be better how?

because of competition.

neither the public or the private sector can be trusted in any sense for anything. Everyone, everytime, exclusively does what benefits him, and you could die and they would party if they make 5 bucks out of it. every single one of them.

But competition is the thing keeping people doing things against us, from raping us constantly basically. the government having no competition rapidly converges to "constant full raping of every citizen as much as possible", which, to be clear, is what corporation would do as well, except you can opt out and **** them in return so they have to keep your well being in mind at least sometimes, so they are always better than the government.

I guess we don't have to imagine it.

for NYS civil law, it's "highly probable". so more than "probable cause" which is used elsewhere, still less than "beyond reasonable doubt" which is the norm in criminal cases across the nation.

some people translate "highly probable" with 60%, others with " a lot more than a coinflip but far from being necessary to be sure"

no, he was found to "plausibly have done it" by a court of law

I find it highly probable that you are incorrect. Probable cause is a criminal standard, having nothing to do with civil burdens of proof.

Afaik, NY uses a "preponderence of the evidence" for most civil tort cases, "clear and convincing" for fraud and "beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal cases.
Admittedly, I don't know what the COAs were that Trump was held responsible for in the first trial, but it wasn't "rape."

Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...

“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” Kaplan wrote.

He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

---
The legal distinction that many rest their "it wasn't rape" claims on was that it was with his fingers rather than...well. It was rape. He raped her.

But you know, flex away, lozen.

jfc

Hmmm...

My pappy always said 'the only real rape victim is the rape victim who acts just like me after being awarded 80 million dollars'

Never trust someone who quotes Twitter as a legitimate source of evidence.

You think competition would stop companies from dumping sewage in the river? I'm pretty sure it would lead them to dump more.

Have you ever heard of externalities? It's very basic economics.

AND the generational decline in testosterone levels. Huzzah! 😀

yeah but if we let the corporations do whatever they want, they wont do the bad things. they only do the bad things because of pesky regulations make them sad so they have to do the bad things.

Could be... testosterone does make people do crazy things.

I thought this case about diffamation , not about the rape case ?
Getting 80millions from trump not able to stfu with lies , hum yeah I would laugh too .