TommySalami

The term "flashpoint" has nothing to do with assigning blame. It just defines an event/place where things kicked off into something way bigger. If WW3 started due to a strike on Taiwan it would be accurate to refer to Taiwan as a flashpoint, because the conflict in Taiwan would be the origin. I don't see how any of that takes away from China being the aggressor, or why the conflict would happen.

I get wanting to make it clear China is the problem here, I agree, but we have terms that refer to things objectively for a reason. You don't have to say everything at once with every sentence.

Maybe this is me being unaware of my own divergence, but that sounds pretty normal. We're attached to pattern as humans, and driving is one of those things you do subconsciously (or at least it's on the back burner in terms of direct focus) after a while. Makes sense you would conflate two super similar routes when you are essentially operating off muscle memory

I work for a neurologist practice, and the amount I have to argue with insurance (and inevitably have to get the neurologist on the phone to directly request something for many) is insane. A good chunk of my job isn't providing care, but arguing with insurance that the care is necessary. These companies are actively delaying patient care, and try to blame the physician whenever possible.

Wildly infuriating, especially when the denials are worded along the lines of "we reviewed this, and don't consider it medically necessary". Motherfucker, a doctor said it was necessary and listed the clinical reasons why this test or procedure would be beneficial. Nothing has radicalized me for universal healthcare more than working in healthcare.

Yeah, I'm 30 and I have way more recent embarrassing moments to keep me up at night. I'm not thinking of shit I did when I was a kid

I argued with family about this more than once since the debate, and it's endlessly frustrating. I work in the medical field. I've worked mother/baby. Still takes way to long to impress on them that this not only isn't happening, but any remotely similar story they hear is someone twisting the worst day of hopeful parents' lives around to support their political bias. Real people having their tragedy flagrantly lied about, and being painted as baby killers, for no good reason. It's disgusting.

Still no idea if I've gotten through, but they seem to have stopped bringing it up for now.

Then called her (I think NPR said it was a her) crazy afterwards, implying she was having a mental health episode. Then they've gone on to release photos, showing they were blatantly violating federal law after being clearly told they were doing so. Not to mentioned , they allegedly assaulted an Arlington cemetery staff member in furtherance of that violation (I know you mentioned this but I feel it's worth repeating, there should be multiple people charged for this).

I think that character was supposed to be an amalgamation, so you're kinda right. I was getting Tucker Carlson vibes everytime I saw him. That "grown man in a bowtie who desperately wants to hard R it" kinda energy.

There are rooms clearly marked with mask and droplet precautions on the outside of the door, and the staff will take a mask from a box next to the door, go inside to deal with that person, and then when they’re done they take their mask back off and go back to walking around treating patients with no mask. What do the people in those rooms have?

This is pretty standard, and maybe I can shed some light on it. You don the mask as you enter the room and take it off as you leave to avoid spreading the contaminate out of the room. The mask adds a barrier and reduces your risk of contracting whichever disease (and subsequently spreading it to other patients), and all the stuff it's blocked stays in or at the room when you shed it. So the people seen doing that are actually playing their part in keeping whatever that person has limited to the room they're staying in.

As for what people in those rooms have, it can be a lot of things, but it really is what it says on the tin. They have something that can spread by droplet, which ranges from the flu to stuff like whooping cough or, yes, COVID. The system to keep these things contained is pretty consistently updated and has worked well when implemented. We were all wearing masks everywhere for a time because COVID was spreading like wildfire, and concerns of people becoming contagious before showing symptoms with no way to reliably innoculate/vaccinate medical workers

West by God Virginia. I spent a lot of time there reminding people we fought for the north.

I don't think it would prompt some kind of vindictive vote. That side of it is only going to energize those who were vehemently republican anyway. Republicans would hammer on any and all sympathy they can eke from having their candidate assassinated (regardless of the truth they will say it was the left, and at best people will think the guy was just crazy), and the average person only half paying attention will eat it up. Dems would be even more hamstrung in their rhetoric against the GOP considering the gravity of an event like that. Even with that aside, they're now running Joe Biden against whichever face the GOP tells their voters to line up behind -- who you can bet will be all in on the kind of stuff that will do even more lasting damage to our country. Biden is not a strong candidate, and without the uniquely unlikable personality and character of Trump I'm not sure there's enough motivation amongst voters to carry him to another term.

But all of that was a lot to type, so I just said it would give them a massive boost

I tentatively agree. The man himself I have no sympathy for, but an assassination of presidential nominee would have made everything even worse. GOP would get a huge boost, and could replace Trump with someone that is actually competent enough to fully implement their 2025 treason-esque bullshit. Not to mention how much that would have inflamed an already looney tunes level of political discourse.

It's also just not how we should do things in America. Call me a hopeless patriot, but we should try to live up to the ideals we espouse.

I mean, in context that verse is about being aware one's belief in Jesus may cause strife with their family/community, and how Christians are meant to endure this strife without denying their faith. The choice of wording makes sense in the context of the time it was written, when affirming Christ is God would have absolutely caused some major animosity with those who don't believe. It's assuring the reader that the division and pain that will come from those disagreements is not lost on God, and also not something we can turn away from and ignore.

The Christians that everyone is up in arms about all the time are close to the worst representation of the faith as possible, and you can easily point out their lazy interpretations as well as scripture that, more often than not, outright rejects their twisting of the faith. Modern day Pharisees all the way. Unfortunately the church on a national level is inundated with them, and has done a poor job of separating from them.