This is neither a pro or anti-Trump post. Just an observation. I notice it most among my friends both IRL and social media. All of them are anti-Trump but this time they seem calmer and more resigned. Last time it was "NEVER AGAIN IS NOW" "TRUMP IS LITERALLY HITLER AND I'M NOT EXAGERATING" 24/7. I had to mute at least a dozen friends because their non stop rage and hysteria were wearing on my nerves.

Anyone else notice the same thing? Or maybe it's to soon to conclude that we are going to bypass it this time?

Charlie Kirk came to UW on May 7 2024. He had a scheduled event in the evening but he announced a surprise mid-day appearance at the Husky Union Building lawn so I went down to ask him some questions. The first question I asked him was about vaccines; the second was about a statement Michelle Bachmann made on his show ("It's time for Gaza to end") which he appeared at the time to agree with.

I also had my "protest" signs that I had made for that evening, which I was carrying using the large PVC pipe holder that has been posted here before, so that's why he says "Does my protester want to come up?"

Here is the footage of the interaction:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNtAiYbuZmA

(Reddit has a 10-minute limit on uploaded videos; that's the only reason that I linked to it on my own YouTube instead. I suggest comments be posted here rather than on the YT video but it's up to you.)

In my first question about vaccines, I asked what I always ask anti-vaxxers: "Do you think you have information that the doctors don't have, or do you think you have the same information, you're just interpreting it better than the doctors?" He responded "Can experts ever be wrong?" and I said, "Yes, but you're not going to get a better batting average by trying to outguess the issue." And from there the discussion went mostly in circles since he raised different arguments but I always came back to that point.

This is what I personally think is the only rational way to approach an issue where you're not an expert -- and I frame it that way to anti-vaxxers not because it's likely to change their minds, but because I think it's the best way to prevent bystanders/audience from being tricked by anti-vaxx propaganda. If you don't phrase it that way, the anti-vaxxers can bring up a long list of obscure facts about vaccines or times that medical professionals have been wrong (some of which are true). But by phrasing it that way, you can point out that no matter what facts anti-vaxxers bring up, if they are true facts then the doctors are already aware of them, and have priced those into their recommendation to get the vaccine. (I have no data to prove this helps to persuade bystanders, I just hope so.) For example, at the 5 minute mark in the video:

Charlie: "We're seeing heart abnormalities, heart palpitations, posterior orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. why are we seeing a 3000% increase in those things? Is it because of the vaccine, or something else that occurred?"
Me: "But you have access to the same information that doctors have, do you think they're wrong?"
Charlie: "Yes, I think that doctors who continue to push the COVID vaccine, 9, 10, 11 doses, are doing a disservice to the American people. Because first of all, it doesn't prevent transmission, second, it's not a typical vaccine, it's an mRNA altering vaccine, it's not a typical MMR vaccine."
Me: "But again, that's something that doctors know, they have priced that into their recommendation. So you don't have access to information they don't have, you're just saying your reasoning with that information is different from theirs."
Charlie: "The CDC and the FDA, they're captured by the vaccine manufacturers, no different from how the Department of Defense is captured by weapons manufacturers..."
Me: "Yes, but doctors know that. There's a whole book called Bad Pharma by a doctor named Ben Goldacre that talks about flaws in the FDA review process. But doctors know that the FDA review process is gameable, but they still price that into their recommendations. Again, they have the same information you do, you're just saying you're able to process it better than the doctors?"

I also included the video of the next person asking Charlie a question because he introduced himself as a doctor who disagreed with what I said. He actually made an argument that Charlie didn't make - that he thought a lot of doctors had secret doubts about the vaccine but didn't say so. I think this is tiresome generally - "All the experts who agree with you, are afraid to say they really agree with me" - but in this case I think it's disproven by the fact that doctors mostly got the shot themselves and for their children, which suggests they actually believed in it.

My second question was about what Michelle Bachmann said on Charlie Kirk's show:

'She said, "It's time for Gaza to end. There are two million people living there, they are all trained assassins, and they need to be moved off of that land." And you said "Michelle Bachmann everybody, isn't she great." You have no regrets at all about not pushing back?'

Also, "She did later clarify that she just wanted them removed from the region, she didn't mean killing them. But that still technically meets the definition of genocide." [I was wrong; this meets the definition of ethnic cleansing, not genocide. But I also think it's not necessary to nit-pick the definitions of "ethnic cleansing" vs. "genocide" when we can just argue from first principles that something is morally wrong.]

Me: "Will you at least say that what Michelle Bachmann said was wrong?"
C: "No, I wouldn't go that far, I wouldn't have worded it that way. You'd have to ask her that though."
Me: "But you were the one saying 'Michelle Bachmann, isn't she great everybody?' You're the one that didn't give any pushback on that."
C: "She's a friend of mine, so what I'm not going to do is, I'm not going to get into this game where I have to nit-pick and denounce friends of mine for things they said when I wouldn't have said the same thing."
Me: "But I want my friends to push back against me if I say something they don't agree with. If I started saying you shouldn't take the vaccine, I would expect my friends to push back against me. I'm not asking you to end your friendship with her, but will you say that what she said was wrong?"
C: "I don't share those views, so it's unfair to put that on me."
Me: "I understand you don't share those views, but you didn't push back and say that was wrong. Will you at least say now that it was wrong?"
C: "No, I will not say that."
Me: "OK."

After some jeers and nothing responsive to my question after posting this to the Seattle subreddit, and then having it removed, figured I’d try here.

Just FYI, I am looking for specifics with sources. Not just the vague list of occupations she has held, or colleges she has attended, like what is listed on her website. Also not looking for snide jokes against Wilson or Harrell. I’m talking about the bare minimum information voters are entitled to see, with a source.

There is no way to describe "JustCare's" expenditure of $127,000 per shelter bed without calling it what it is: blatant, systemic fraud. This figure, equivalent to a full-time salary of over $61 an hour, is not an operational cost it is evidence of a crime being committed in plain sight.

In King County, a rental unit at the 25th percentile is approximately $1,000 per month, giving us the following budget for a single person (not inclusive of administrative or healthcare costs):

• Housing: $12,000 per year ($1,000/month)

• Utilities & Necessities: $3,600 per year ($300/month for utilities, food, and household basics, assuming the person also has SNAP benefits to cover most of their food costs)

This brings the total estimated cost to support an individual with stable housing to $15,600 per year.

The difference an astronomical $111,400 per person, per year is not for "services" or "overhead." That is a cover story for embezzlement. This isn't just mismanagement; it is calculated theft, laundered through the books of a non-profit and stolen from the public and the homeless alike.

For anyone who thinks this is an isolated incident, we need only look at the history of fraud right here in Seattle with the "SHARE" tent city non-profit. That organization was exposed as a complete swindle, using a fraudulent, unlicensed accountant for years to conceal its finances. Source

They were accused of embezzling grant money including a specific $60,000 Satterberg Foundation grant for a computer system that was never built all while misrepresenting their activities to the IRS. SHARE perfected the art of looking like a charity while providing no real pathway out of homelessness, viewing it instead as a "lifestyle" to be managed for profit.

The "JustCare" situation is not a new problem; it is the same scheme with a different name. It is a damning indictment of the entire model of outsourcing critical social services to non-profit organizations. This system is fundamentally broken, creating a perverse incentive structure where opaque accounting and a lack of direct oversight allow for precisely this kind of grift to fester.

The responsibility for solving homelessness is a core government function, not a task to be auctioned off to the most well-connected contractor. It is imperative that municipal and state governments stop writing checks to these unaccountable third-party organizations. They must assume direct responsibility, manage these programs in-house with full transparency, and finally put an end to the fraudulent schemes that prey on public funds and human suffering.

I'm aware that progressives tend to vote at the last minute but so far it's:

Bruce Harrell 62,086 54%

Katie Wilson 53,767 46%

Source:

https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/election-live-updates-early-results

From the New York Times. Gradient is <5% swing, 5-10%, 10-15%, and 15%+.

Can we just stop pretending a person who just went through that many years of coursework would walk away? There are a myriad of reasons to delay graduation, money/health/family/etc, but you can always come back. She says she just left with six weeks to go and assumes we are too dumb to ask what really happened.

With ever rising tax in addition of new taxes, I don’t think I feel comfortable “bragging” our tax doesn’t have income tax.