Mark Davis

Again, unless chromosomes and what we’ve long known about sexes to be true somehow has unraveled, you’re making a statement that is false. I haven’t stated anything that isn’t scientifically factual to make my case. You’re bringing feelings and beliefs in to justify your position. Someone’s feelings or beliefs aren’t facts.

You’re reaching here IMO. The more appropriate analogy to this story would be scientifically I would advocate that the water would help things grow because it’s based in fact. Your argument is more the religious or spiritual belief that just because you want to believe something it should therefore be considered correct. If you have xx chromosomes and female reproductive parts you’re a girl. If you have xy chromosomes and male reproductive organs you’re a boy. I realize there are some specific cases of shades in the middle. But for the majority of people they fall directly into one of these two categories. You’re asking for someone’s belief to trump (yes I realize the irony) what biologically they factually are. In this case I submit to you that it is you taking the side of religion and feeling versus one of objective and scientific fact.

I know what xy and xx chromosomes mean. It’s like understanding why the sky is blue. My little girl could tell me it’s green. However, I shouldn’t lie to her to make her believe something that is factually false. It only harms her going forward and indulging these delusions is just that. That’s what you are essentially promoting.

Feeling something is correct when reality is factually different is pretty close to what I'd have given as a layman's example of mental illness.

Probably the longest argument I've had here was on this very point. The government has already had their cut, they shouldn't get a second pass at it. When it comes to federal taxation, the problem many have is they see incremental rates as making a huge difference while it only taxes those with earned income. The vast majority of the 0.1% of top earners are making theirs through capital gains. You could raise the top rate to 100% and our budget wouldn't be close to in balance.

Not always the smoothest either. As a former accountant it's surprising to me how many erroneous 1099's my business receives from companies who are much larger and should have competent departments to issue them.

Yep, "shill bidding". It was common back then because otherwise people's items would sell for low amounts if only one interested party. Ebay frowned on it but it was rampant. Buyer's remorse always won out, I had daily unpaid item reports to get back sales fees for unpaid purchases

Yep. I used to get checks and money orders in the mail. There was no buy it now. I had to run 3, 5, 7, or 10 day auction format listings to sell inventory in various quantities. For proof of delivery I was sending old certified letters like attorneys do so I could show someone signed for the item.

I started my business in ‘99 selling on eBay. God those days were brutal and dealing with the dregs of society on there. At least now with the buy it now stuff you get paid. I used to have a default on payment rate of nearly 20%

I hope for his benefit that's the reason he stated that. The alternative is really concerning.

It’s telling that you find it amusing that gang members escaped capture. Hopefully nobody loses their life as a result but if it’s true they’ve identified the leak, we need to save a spot at Gitmo for them.

Well, and few of us old enough to be using these type message boards are young enough that we should be having risk thresholds of having enough crypto or other high risk investments to garner those type numbers. Index funds may be boring, but they get the job done like 4 yard runs on 1st and 10.

I'll admit it wasn't my favorite Trump moment and not something I liked to see. But if people really thought we were taking troops to Gaza, it would be the one reason to legit breath into the brown paper bag. Trump always starts from an extreme position, to try and gain something from moderating. He does it repeatedly.

On the border when it comes to Mexico alone we have people here both arguing nothing happened as well as arguing, well the 10,000 troops happened but it won't matter. So either he got the 10K or he didn't, they are effective or they aren't. The left can't decide which end of the argument they want because the two are at opposite ends. So you have people making exact opposite arguments for why Trump got owned, backed down, whatever the talking heads catch phrase of the moment is. It can't be both, in reality it's neither, and while there may be some flaws to what he did get, it was more than what we had gotten from the Mexican government. Take Trump out of it, because people are so personally invested they can't evaluate what's happening. Someone in the WH, him or someone else, is orchestrating these things. Even people like CNN's Bakari Sellers are admitting Democrats are flat footed on these things. He's flooding the zone and the attack dogs don't know which is real and what to attack. We aren't putting American troops in Gaza. One of the few things I think you and I agree on is that we shouldn't. Like I said, I think it's a head fake. If I'm wrong, I will say I was wrong.

This is what's happening. When this came out yesterday, I was like no way. His coalition is built on people not wanting American boots on the ground in foreign land but promoting peace through strength as well. Not backing down, but not getting into hopeless quagmires we can't win. This part of the world is one of those. If he does it, come back and quote me and I'll own it. But this was a head fake, Michael Jordan used to do it all the time. I mean Netanyahu could hardly keep a straight face if you look at the clips. When someone jumps at it, it leaves you wide open to do something else you really want to do. It's an analogy but this story soaked up all the evening talking heads' coverage last night. They paid little to no attention to anything else going on from the White House.

I personally don't believe that the true intention is for us to be an occupying force there, just rhetoric. I have no interest in seeing US forces there. If there's someone we need to kill, kill them and leave. No need to stay, don't want the territory, nothing for us there.

The population's mindset is totally poisoned with what is taught there. There's a reason the Egyptians or Jordanians won't take them in. Like you said, they chose their leadership and where it's gotten them.

Oh I'm sure corruption is rampant there. I'd rather have more help than less even if they are 20% effective. The heavy lift is going to have to be done by our side.

He surrendered by them sending an additional 10K soldiers? Again, I get if you want to argue their effectiveness given the corruption in Mexican government and military. But these are additional troops. So the argument they aren't sending them isn't valid. This is per the NY Times so it's hardly a pro Trump source.

So the NY Times is wrong is what you're saying?

One may be right to question if they will be effective, and I've been kind of trying to stay out of this but factually the argument you are making is incorrect. This is from the NY Times, and I'll link the article as well. These are additional troops to what are presently there. Deploy to the U.S.-Mexico border 10,000 members of the Mexican National Guard, a militarized force tasked with security operations and, in recent years, migration enforcement efforts. The deployment is in addition to the mix of police forces, Mexican Army soldiers and guardsmen already patrolling the border. The National Guard troops will be focused on curbing the flow of fentanyl and illegal migrants into the United States. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/02/03/us/trump-tariffs

Not a fan of the way she treated her dog but she's a smoke show

I don't dispute there are some voluntarily unemployed American malcontents in there. In retrospect, I could be short sighted on the makeup of the crowd due to that reason, by definition it's pretty hard for someone working to be out there in the middle of the day. I do find it funny as an American the thought of waving the flag of another country though. I'd have to be pretty miserable with my life to do so but then again I have things pretty good. Plus my dad who was in WWII might come out of the grave to beat me to death for it.

Totally different argument then. You're welcome to a differing viewpoint, but the comment wasn't about what you believe. I still contend that if the status of the people in that video were ascertained that a substantial portion would be illegal. Common sense says it's so, and I suspect you know that as well, at least I hope so.

Sure they do, you're trying to broaden my comment out to make an arguing point where one doesn't exist. I stated that about the people in the video who are blocking streets and waving the Mexican flag in an anti-ICE protest. It's a little different than a parade of some sort or annual celebration, or World Cup game etc. A good many people who might do so in other situations at the very least aren't anti-ICE. By definition, those people in that video are. Now why would that be?