When the mods ban US politics the day after an election.
oxjox
joined 1 year ago
From my experience, I would say it really depends on what kind of smoker you are.
I smoked on and off for over twenty years. I made strong associations with cigarettes in my college years. It was a way to get away, to be different, to meet new people, to relax, etc. Sometimes I smoked two packs a day, but more often a pack a week. I smoked the most while driving or after work or at the bar. My friends at the bar smoked, my girlfriends smoked, my coworkers smoked.
I read long ago that, for some people, nicotine fits like a puzzle piece into a receptor in their bodies. I believe I lack this receptor that causes biological addition and my smoking was due more to Pavlovian conditioning. I never had a morning craving. I never got "the shakes". I quit over a dozen times, sometimes for more than a year.
When I was finally ready, and I have to emphasize that you need to be ready, I actually went out of my way to not have a cigarette while doing the things I strongly associated with smoking. I knew I was ready and it was going to stick because I quit over the course of "Beer Week" (Beer Week is when all the bars in the city have beer specials and events and serve one-off or collaboration beers from around the world). It was the worst time to quit but also the best time to quit. It was a challenge. When my friends at the bar all went out for a smoke, I joined them - without a smoke. When I was done eating dinner, I'd go outside and just sit and think without the cigarette. I even went for a drive with a cigarette in my hand and pretended to smoke it without lighting it up.
Being ready to quit isn't about knowing it's bad for you. To be really honest with you, I quit because I was flirting with a super cute girl who happened to be a doctor (I still remember her name - Rose. Because Rose + Doctor Who). Everything was going great then I interrupted her so I could go outside for a cigarette. The disappointment felt by the both of us when I returned was the gut punch I needed. I still have that pack of cigarettes that I only had three smokes out of.
I've not had a single urge to smoke for nine and a half years now.
Or you could try hypnotherapy. Worked for my mom after smoking for over 45 years.
You’re right. There’s a cohort of people who’ve taken it upon themselves to redefine words and reality to make it seem like they’re the good guys when in fact they’re traitors.
I really don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m talking about the video of the actual live event which clearly shows a holster on the belt of the agent and Trump crouching down next to it. That is all. It’s clear, in the actual video, that Trump does not have blood on his hand when he checks it before he crouches down.
I’m just looking at the video of Trump crouching down and plausibly colliding with the holster. I don’t know how any of what you’re saying is relevant.
I’m coming for the previous belief that he was shot. However, the lack of clear injury and medical report do raise questions. It seems far more likely to me that he just smash his ear on the holster than a bullet hitting him. That’s just logical to me.
There's clear evidence that a bullet did go past his ear. He was likely reacting to the noise of it. I wish I could find the video I saw but basically, you have to find the clip of the wide angle view. It's not 100% evident that this is what caused the blood but it's extremely compelling and just makes all the sense in the world. I'll keep looking.
I've had a similar experience recently with my family (though I failed to convince them to think for themselves) and I fully agree with you.
One of my uncles said he's voting to Trump to lower gas prices - I told him no American president has ever set gas prices. My aunt, who was on the fence (no pun intended), was concerned about migrants coming through the border - I told her about the bipartisan immigration bill that Trump managed to kill so Biden wouldn't get a win. She was also concerned about female rights. Someone else argued that there were no wars during Trump's term and that Harris would be soft on international politics - I informed them there were "no wars" (not true) because Trump let everyone do what they wanted and empowered our enemies.
It's just really hard to understand how people can go about their lives not have a passing interest in politics or elections. Especially given that it's basically everything in the world right now.
At the same time, these fucking election ads are just the worst. Every single one of them, including many of Harris', are full of blatant lies and distortions of the facts. I watch some of them and say to myself - this is what's going to decide the election, an ad full of lies.
I wish we lived in a world where his words mattered to more than ~51% of the population.
Although, it does give us a more clear picture of where the values of nearly half of Americans lie – those who call themselves Patriots aren't dissimilar to those who called themselves Confederates.
Also... there's a very compelling video suggesting that it wasn't the bullet that caused his ear to bleed but a collision with the gun holster of a secret service agent when he crouched down for cover.
Edit: Found the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TOtnYboqxQ
The United States has historically empowered Israel as a deterrent to Iran's hostility in the region and towards the US. I agree that defensive measures are necessary but the efforts that Trump has taken go too far to promote the annihilation of non-Jews in the region.
Trump is pure evil. He is measurably worse than anything Biden has done / not done. If you believe otherwise you are forgetting or ignoring the Trump administration.
To thank Trump about this is to thank him for taking steps towards nuclear war.
I hope this is sarcasm.
I really don't know anymore. You can put the evidence directly in front of someone's face and they choose to ignore and deny its existence.
You are so fucking wrong. I have never understood this logic that because people are doing things out in the open that it's a good thing. They are popularizing their ideas. More people are exposed to them when they're out in the open. Had they been operating in some obscure forum, they would lack the advertising of their ideas to others.
For what possible reason could this be "positive"? So that the rest of us are aware of their first amendment protected hateful ideas? What good does that do anyone? We just elected one of them to be president of the United States. Allowing hate speech to bloom out in the open tempers our reactions and slowly seeps into our minds as propaganda.
Freedom of speech is, in the US, something that the US Constitution promises will not be restricted by Congress. It is not something any private company is required to protect. I would argue that private companies have a responsibility to its users to ban all hate speech and report substantiated threats to law enforcement.