No its a normal world. The US just elected criminals and fascists because the dog finally caught the car. They got what they wanted and people have to live with that. Everyone always wondered how the germans let the nazi’s win….
Well america, yall are setting up a concentration camp in a foreign country for a minority group and have people doing literal nazi salutes at the presidential inauguration.
They are also currently demonizing the disabled by blaming them for a tragedy even though it makes no sense.
Now I know there was a group that did some vile stuff to others based on their ethnicity, sexual orientation, and disabilities, but mentioning them gets me called an alarmist.
It doesn't even make sense. Unless information has surfaced that I'm unaware of, the helicopter had its transponder off and wasn't responding to radio calls, and the net was on final approach having just come out of its base turn. This puts the jet in a precarious position for a go around because they are low and slow coming out of a turn. Beyond that, the helicopter doesn't have the right of way not only because the jet is cleared for landing, but also because the jet is less maneuverable in this situation.
Couple all of that with the helicopter operating in radio darkness at the approach end of an active runway within the set glide path in busy commercial airspace, literally everything that I've seen points to the helicopter operators being at fault here.
Again, my information may be outdated, but if it's not there is nothing pointing towards ATC or even the pilots on the jet being at fault. It's like riding your bike directly across an interstate and the president blaming the cop that you were ignoring.
See, the problem is that we can type out an encyclopedia explaining things. But if the person you're explaining to can't read, it doesn't do you any good.
transponder off and wasn't responding to radio calls,
You can hear them say they have the aircraft in sight on the audio.
"PAT25, do you have the CRJ in sight?"
"PAT25 has the aircraft in sight, visual separation."
No mention in the audio of transponder, and ATC would definitely let you know if it was off. After first contact with ATC they will ask you to "report" which means ping your transponder so they can identify you clearly on radar. If they can't pick you up you are asked to hold and until they can. I haven't seen any reports of the transponder being off. It is part of the startup checklist procedures to turn it on, and it isn't turn back off until after landing - per the checklist.
Radar works independent of transponders, transponders just provide ADS-B data
From what I've been hearing, the route the helo was flying had an altitude restriction of 200ft and it went above that and off course. This is speculative of course, we'll have to wait until the NTSB conducts their investigation
Blaming specifically the fact that the cop in this hypothetical scenario was non-white and/or disabled for their lack of intellectual capacity for the job.
Oh yes, they’ve found out that there was a woman onboard the helicopter. 50% now believe it was her fault, the other half are convinced it was a black air traffic controller. It’s all over X
Trump is blaming DEI hirings for the plane crash, specifically mentioning those with disabilities (including people with dwarfism for...some reason?) .
When asked why he claims that, he answers it's because he has "common sense".
I liked the bit where he asserted that some of the workers who had been hired had 'severe intellectual disabilities'.
At a control tower? A highly specialised job that requires intense training, communication and focus? He expects us to believe that they're hiring the severely intellectually disabled?
Someone pointed out that they did start hiring people with intellectual disabilities to do janitorial work and other menial tasks, where no lives are at stake. Like how some grocery stores hire people with disabilities to bag groceries. Except, it’s a government job so it pays decent and has benefits.
Dementia Don probably heard someone talk about it at some point and the only part he remembers now is that they hired people with disabilities to do something. Then he made up something that fits his narrative to fill in the parts he didn’t remember.
Exactly my friend. DEI just means "give them any kind of work and the government will compensate you (barely) with a $2000 tax write off." Or something. That's Florida does for my employers, but I'm sure other states have far more rights than mine. But they will never hire someone unqualified to work a high risk job. That's just a silly attempt at scapegoating something that happened under Trump's administration.
To be an ATC is one of the most strict criteria of any job. As far as I know, it's the only civilian job that has an age limit, so that your mental acuity and neuroplasticity are intact enough to learn multitasking and focus on multiple objects moving at high speed in a confined airspace.
He expects 10s of millions of Americans, if not more, to believe it (they did), he expects all government employees to pretend to believe it based on the threats, firings, and funding cuts he’s carried out, and he expects most news agencies not to push back too hard given that he has successfully been suing news organizations who did not support him and because his oligarch friends own the social media sites and search engines that control the distribution of their content.
He’s not a dimwitted contrarian this time; he is the dimwitted head of what can only be called an extremely successful cabal of assholes.
I worked with an air traffic controller who changed careers and went into IT as a senior networking consultant and project manager. He is still by far and away the most capable , level headed , sharpest project manager I've worked with by a country mile. Incredible focus and ability to prioritize, plan and ask the right questions. Anyone making or believing these claims about air traffic controllers needs their own faculties checked.
Oh yes. The janitors gotta be super saiyans climbing up and down the walls cleaning every spec of dust available.- literally DEI just means opening more tech or janitorial positions.
Interestingly, my vocational rehabilitation programs caters to both us disabled folks AND to former felons because we're all in the same boat- we are at a disadvantage when it comes to hiring. Perhaps Trump will argue that the janitor on duty was a violent former felon and viciously attacked the ATC with his wet mop, thus blinding him temporarily and causing the crash.
In reality the black hawk was flying twice their altitude restriction (400 ft vs 200 ft) and near misses for this exact scenario have happened in the past. I suppose trump will complain the military is all DEI hire and based on the number of crayon eaters there, I wouldn't argue with him. (I joke)
I think they should really stress the altitude restriction prior to flight, they still have to do training there unfortunately, otherwise how else will they learn to operate in a crowded environment?
He fired a bunch of Faa people, president elongated muskrat and first lady donald bullied the head of FAA to resign, they have been hiring unqualified people to fill in cabinet positions, they say DEI and cry about it because they don't want to see anyone besides whites get good paying jobs
Trump is blaming DEI hirings for the plane crash, specifically mentioning those with disabilities (including people with dwarfism for...some reason?) .
Yeah he implied that they hired Intellectually Challenged people for roles they're not qualified for due to their "DEI program - in reality the DEI program just meant janitors needed less qualification.
I suppose trump would argue that an ATF slipped and fell over a puddle that a DEI janitor spilled and fell unconscious long enough for the plane to crash.
In reality though, the Blackhawk pilots were flying TWICE the maximum acceptable altitude for that airspace: 400 ft instead of 200 ft.
Now I'm not saying the helicopter pilots were incompetent, but they WERE in training, and similar and a few near misses happened years earlier due to helicopter pilots flying above the maximum altitude.
Na, not just you disabled. Us women, too. And the brown and black folks.
Cause you know, the only reason we have jobs is because of woke. Without that, surely there was a more qualified white man who simply didn't get the job because of DEI.
Even typing that is raising my blood pressure. I have been trying to clean up my language, but apparently picked the worst time for that.
Apparently trans people trying to renew their passports are being denied because of this, no matter the gender they request. Just denied a passport full stop.
Never mind the people who are supposed to get ‘deported’ but only hold American citizenship – you can’t deport a person to a country they don’t have a citizenship for. They will be put in ‘detention centres’ indefinitely.
If you don’t think there won’t be concentration camps inside the US you haven’t been paying attention.
Not just denied, but they’re having their documents (birth certificate, drivers license, previous passports) confiscated. Like if a trans person goes to get a new passport, they just keep ALL your documents and give you nothing back. Which is really concerning because that means a targeted population is being prevented from leaving the country
“On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order against “gender ideology extremism,” declaring that the federal government would only recognize two sexes—male and female—and that “these sexes are not changeable.” Days later, new Secretary of State Marco Rubio ordered the freezing of changes to gender identity on passports, as well the suspension of any application of someone seeking an X gender marker, a nonbinary option that was first offered to Americans in 2022”
What's ironic is I highly suspect Trump has some form of autism. Obviously Musk and Gates have what we used to call aspergers- but people usually don't get officially diagnosed if they're not having problems fitting into society like I do.
The new autism level system reflects this change. In that there are 3 levels of impairment: mild, moderate, severe. Which greatly helps when you're trying to get insurance to insure some program for you, if you are at level 3, they will prioritize your treatment. But I think 2 is usually enough for most programs.
It's way better than having to diagnose someone with Asperger's, or being on the spectrum, then having to explain how and why and to what extent their illness affects them. The three levels of severity diagnostic > spectrum
If you don’t think there won’t be concentration camps inside the US you haven’t been paying attention.
Agreed. In this context, it's important to remember that not all concentration camps are nazi-style death camps. Don't get me wrong, they're still obviously bad, but don't let people say "come on, you think there's going to be a Holocaust in the US? That's what concentration camps imply!"
We’ve already seen detention centres with conditions bad enough to cause long-term sickness and eventual death of migrant children. Why people would think that these concentration camps won’t be as bad as the non-extermination Nazi camps is unclear – probably wishful thinking at this point
Do you think they started right away in Germany with gas chambers? They didn't. They started by trying to deport undesirables and then when they couldn't deport them all they put them in camps. Then when the camps became too expensive to maintain and too many, then they finally started killing them.
But this is how it starts what we're seeing now here in the US. It's how it starts. This is the time to act. Don't just wave this away, it's serious
The only "Americans" that should be deported imho, are Confederates and Neo Nazis. Their countries are both gone, so we should just dump them on an island in international waters, where they can f* off and establish their own kingdom.
this will be the third of fourth time the US has had their own little concentration camps since at least the 1940s. Go back further and you can add in countless camps they put Native American in and just for funzies the Trail of Tears.
We planned our trip two weeks ago to Manzanar, California, for this weekend. Because my hubby canceled out my vote, he needs to see it. American Japanese internment camp.
So true. The USA has had quite a internment camps few for different nationalities. My cousin-in-law is born and raised in Japan and when we went to Pearl Harbor, she had never heard of it before!
Honestly, I had no clue he wouldn’t just see this. Love is blind 😂🤣 He and I cannot talk about it without getting defensive. I just don’t get how someone can’t see FACTS as facts.
I remember when the war in Ukraine began and people on Reddit were discussing how the average Russian is innocent and probably hates Putin, but is probably unable to do anything about it. And Americans were so quick to judge and to say things like "if they all united and protested against him, they would get their country back". Well, Americans, why don't you take your own suggestions?
I know. But whos stopping it? Not the other 50% thats for sure. Not the politicians. So everyone is going to sit by and watch as their rights are violated and slip away, and eventually someone will draw a line but it will probably be way to late.
They are setting up a fucking honest to god concentration camp and their hasn’t even been a protest yet let alone any actual action.
First im well studied I know how it happened, that doesnt mean it is something the average person understands, 2nd, I guarantee you I had absolutely nothing to do with Americans destroying America.
Germans didn't let the Nazi's in, they wanted them. Nationalism was popular in Germany at that time. In fact, people looked at how well the German economy appeared to be doing at that time and thought they could do with a bit of the same in their country. And then oops, Germans want to take over everything.
I'm not a septic mate... but, if you want to stay local, keep an eye on Farage. Or the rise of the right across Europe. They are all modelling themselves on the shamlessness of MAGA.
Canada as well. I'm scared for our next election. Mainstream media here is all owned by billionaires and American hedge funds and the Conservative party has clearly stated they want to get rid of the only media that isn't, the government funded CBC.
If you own the media, you own the message. Goebbels would be proud.
Tories filled the BBC with their mates to do the same thing. They also have their own channels now which appear to have no audience other than social media types telling us what is being said. GBeebies (GB News) pays Farage a fortune but they make heavy losses. Their funding is questionable.
I just don't understand y'all. Do you think that dodging direct questions is a NEW THING for politicians? We've been complaining about this since politics existed.
Cabinet positions really shouldnt be held by politicians though. Wouldnt be opposed to a constitutional amendment that banned congressmembers and governors from becoming cabinet heads.
Cabinet confirmation hearings have never really had teeth. Sometimes you can embarrass someone enough that the president withdraws them, but they're mostly a chance for the people to see who the president is appointing.
Not necessarily. People can put you in a spot where neither yes or no is an adaquate response. We don't live in a binary world, and often the correct answer is 'it depends' or 'it's complicated', and to elaborate.
In this case, however, it's a simple yes that vaccines don't cause autism. RFK Jr asks for studies, but you don't need studies to prove two things are not connected. You need studies to show they are connected - and there's only ever been one which is completely discredited as it had no credibility whatsoever. Sadly, it's still having an impact today because it confirms something some people want to believe.
I understand RFK Jr has been one of these vaccine and autism misinformers and it's absolutely absurd he should get anywhere near a government health position.
To be fair, anyone with actual expertise in the field wouldn't answer the question yes or no, they'd answer something along the lines of "I'm not aware of any credible research linking vaccines to autism."
Semantics? The questioner surely defines whether they're asking a yes or no question, not the responder. Arguing it's not so simple can make you seem evasive and uncooperative.
Rfk is a piece of shit. Vaccines don't cause autism. But even "is the sky blue?" is a trick question. Time of day? Weather? Wild fires? Geograhical position?
Yes or no questions CAN be the problem themselves
However this is not one of them. No. The answer is no. And the pediatric sciences have had to put in vast resources to produce more papers than any other to debunk the ONE paper which has been stricken from the record for clear abuse and bias
Well, tecnically, if we are being semantic (this time ACTUALLY) the response is no, because the sky is not blue, it only looks blue sometimes, the sky is actually transparent.
But yes this is stupid, Vaccines do not cause autism, if we had the technology to do such an advanced form of body modification we wouldn't turn kids autistic, we would be making fucking super humans, wich would probably also be autistic, but not on the way those idiots think of autistic.
Ok, I get where you're coming from. Of course I agree that some questions have simple answers. And obviously I agree that the vaccine and autism question is straightforward. My son is autistic and that 'study' from over 20 years ago still casts a shadow today.
My original response was simply to add to the thread discussion that questions phrased as 'simple yes/no' questions are often more complicated. And that disqualifying someone for not answering 'simple yes/no questions' didn't sit well with me, as you're putting self-imposed constraints on their answer.
Basically, it's a bit of a manipulative technique, and that's if you're asking a straightforward clarifying question in good faith. Often these questions are asked in bad faith to make someone look evasive and verbose if you expand your answer or don't answer directly. And of course what might seem like a simple question to one person isn't to another.
I think it's just better to phrase these questions as 'Would you agree that X does not cause Y'? It's the same question, and pretty direct, but it avoids all the issues above.
Trump gave him enough time to be coached on how to lie without perjuring himself using the same Federalist Society tactics employed by Trump’s Supreme Court Justice picks.
We need to take a deep breath and focus on saving our Democracy by galvanizing for the midterms.
Good luck with having midterms. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if if Trump says, “We don’t need any mid terms. My numbers are the most bigly numbers you could see.”
He has literally made several executive orders that go against the constitution, the one ending birthright citizenship for example. You’re living in an authoritarian state now.
Then protect and maintain your energy. Pick an issue that impacts your local community and is meaningful to you to address. Show up and do the work in the real world.
When midterms approach we can harness and galvanize that energy and attract others to protect the US Constitution and our Democratic Republic.
Yep. More and more it seems that all of the questioning in these hearings means absolutely nothing, even when the candidate shows themselves to be a terrible pick with no competence. Republicans will just confirm these turds without bothering to pay any attention to what happens here. So Bernie is doing the right thing in asking questions like this, but it won't matter. Which is super depressing.
On of my favorite mentors would say “you know you’re man when you can answer a yes or no question with a yes or no answer” and that’s had a pretty big impact on me.
As a lawyer, I’ve used that one while cross examining a witness a couple of times.
I agree but I wonder if you keep that same energy for literally every member of congress and the senate. Not a single one of them answers questions. Biden didn’t answer questions, Harris didn’t answer questions, Trump definitely doesn’t answer questions.
He could have just said "I have said that in the past but I'm willing to change my mind if given sufficient evidence to the contrary." Admit past mistakes and show a willingness to learn and move forward. Instead he just stammers and hems and hawks and pleads ignorance. The kicker is that Fox News eats it up.
It’s hard because I generally agree with this, but there are times when the side I disagree with uses the yes/no tactic to get a gotcha moment and there are times when some nuance and context is needed beyond a yes and no.
I’m not saying that every answer should be a yes or no answer. But when they ask a simple yes or no question with no gotcha built in they should answer the question.
And if they recognize that simple question as a gotcha sound-bite and want to give more than a simple fell-for-the-trap answer what should happen then?
Obviously give a more detailed answer. But this isn’t a gotcha question. It’s a simple fucking question that anyone with half a brain should be able to answer. No, vaccines do not cause autism. There have been shitloads of studies showing that. But because one person, who was proved to have lied on his paper, said they did all of a sudden that is the truth.
It's a question that does not speak to his ability to do the job. Does not speak to his qualifications to do the job. It's looking for him to give a sound-bite answer that can then be later thrown in his face if he were to even question it later.
Some information or study comes up and says something that makes you think that might not be the right answer anymore, you can't even ask the question or that gotcha sound-bite will be played a million times that week.
So an answer saying you're not going into the job with any preordained conceptions should be an acceptable answer to that question being asked at that time.
That’s literally a qualification for being a politician. “Can you turn a yes or no question into a 3 minute speech that doesn’t answer the question” if yes, you’re hired.
First time watching congress interrogate someone? Doesn't matter if it's the senate or the house. The bustard who is being questioned doesn't reveal a damn thing, the politicians act ourtraged, and then meeting is adjourned.
I don't disagree, but it's not like this is unique to this guy or the Trump administration. All politicians do this. Even Burnie's done it a couple times.
EDIT: Although to be fair, in this case it would have much bigger consequences than Bernie dodging questions about his opinions on Israel.
The world is not black and white and most of these senate confirmation hearings use "yes or no" answers as a gotcha. Both sides do this against the "opposing" side when a new President is elected. I will give you the most relevant example:
Bernie Sanders asked RFK if he believed "healthcare is a human right" Bobby tried to clarify it is not in fact a right like the 1st amendment as an example. Bernie cut him off and said "yes or no is healthcare a human right?". And when RFK started answering with the commonly accepted reason why healthcare cannot be classified as a right and Bernie just cuts him off, muttered something about being willing to have a long discussion about it, and moves on. This simply is not a "yes or no" answer. You have to recognize the gray area.
The argument: The 1st amendment costs nothing to any person or society. It us a natural right everyone is automatically afforded. Forcing another human being to care for another, whether it is because of the patient's poor choices or just natural healthcare, is still forcing a person to work. It cannot be considered a legal right. We do not allow slavery in this country and you cannot force someone to work against their will (the literal definition of slavery).
We do allow slavery in this country, though. Prisoners can be forced to work, soldiers can be drafted. 13th amendment says so itself.
Also, would you say the first amendment applies to pregnant women? Because in practice it absolutely doesn't. Otherwise abortion would be an unquestionable right. Why does any fetus have the right to woman's body, if no person should be forced to care for another's health? Or are women lesser people?
I did not say we cannot have universal healthcare. I think our system is fucked and we should as a nation have universal healthcare. There is a difference between a nationwide universal healthcare and making "healthcare a right".
Universal healthcare would take in to consideration that people should be compensated for their time and education costs, costs to build facilities, cost of equipment etc. Healthcare as a natural born right means that no matter what you will be afforded healthcare, no matter the expense to others. We must admit the gray areas exist in life. We absolutely must recognize that somewhere, in some fucked up way, this could be used to force healthcare workers to work against their will. Unless you totally and without question trust the current government to not force people in to work? As far as I can tell, a fascist government would be likely to do that exact thing...
If you have to intentionally misconstrue one’s argument to make your own, then you don’t have one. You have a logical fallacy.
One can agree simultaneously that healthcare is not a human right, as it implies that someone is entitled to the labor of doctors and their fellow citizens, while also believing we should have universal healthcare. Nuances exist.
Just like the right to a speedy trial implies someone is entitled to the labor of lawyers and their fellow citizens as jurors, and therefore lawyers and jurors are slaves? GTFOH with your "but muh fallacy!!!". Healthcare being a human right doesn't turn doctors into slaves. If they really hate being paid money so much and their hippocratic oath or whatever then they have the freedom to pursue a different career field - not slavery.
Lawyers working cases under the 6th amendment are people who applied to work at public defenders offices. A lawyer from a giant firm is not working public defense unless they want to. Per ABA Model Rule 6.1, a lawyer cannot be required under law to represent anybody.
You’re 2/2 on logical fallacies considering you’ve strawmanned another argument. The crying about being called out for poor arguments is hilarious.
That’s cool dude. I’m pretty sure I still said one can agree that healthcare is not a human right while also acknowledging that universal healthcare is the most beneficial thing for a country. You don’t read well.
4.1k
u/mattzombiedog Jan 31 '25
If they can’t answer a simple yes or no question then they should be disqualified.