To be fair they fell in line quickly - particularly the one whose dad died. If you extend the line of questionability of "his own officers" then the true number of people Old Chiang hand under his full command was a lot lower than the counted numbers of the NRA.

Lol… Quacking about what has *already been proven* does nothing to change the questionability of what has yet to be. More important is the loss of confidence voters have, especially when California is the subject, and there is video of payments to homeless people being told who to vote for. Fortunately, not all homeless people are dishonest or vulnerable to manipulation.

questionability and quantifiability

quantifiability and questionability

I’m aware of this. This doesn’t absolve him of being a bad guy. Literally all of the “loyal characters” have elements that showcase moral questionability. Hilda is a good example of this as while she seems the most “good,” looking at her supports show that she is SUPER racist.

The move back towards GOP has everything to do with Platners questionability as a good candidate and not much at all to do with gas prices. Much harder for Dems to flip senate if they lose Maine.

In 24 hours Heike Behrend will deliver her lecture ”The Horrors of Wanting to Know: The Prohibition on Asking Questions and the Questionability of Questions in Ethnographic Fieldwork" #mossewednesday @mosse_lectures @HumboldtUni 🗺️Humboldt University, Berlin 🕖June 11 7:15 CET

It would be too bad if the House didn't count California's electoral votes anymore given their questionability.

I'M YELLING THE SAME THING FROM LA. Looking at GOPLA's feed, why no hourly statements?! Except for a pinned one, every other is just one repost after another. GOPLA should be screaming from the rooftops about the questionability of what's happened.

Well, you see the only issue with that is that the community notes are quite often inaccurate, 😅 and in about 75% of the cases I have seen, they are only put there to cause the instance that there is a community note🖐, which brings questionability to the post, even if it is 100% accurate period I don't agree with this at all. And I know you don't give a s*** about what i say but, this isn't going to do what you think It will imo There goes my replies period i'm not replying on a g****** thing because everything gets community noted Oh well

Well, I wouldn’t consider it dirt, per se, but the fact that he has introduced to the public a “girlfriend” who says she regularly hangs out in a gay bar just might be an indication of questionability.

Replicate this convo but instead discussing the questionability of enjoying the things you do in GTA and Mortal Kombat, these dudes would look at you like you're crazy

I can speak w confidence regarding Amplitech. Overall adoption has been slow however is gaining momentum finally, timely step was AMPG getting this 64T64R Northeastern O-RAN Certification. however what changed within the year was margins compressed in Q4 thereby spooking investor & those familiar w co. Management history knows they stubbed their toe with guidance a couple years back. Bringing Questionability in focus. Strong Q1 $5M was good but NOT OMG $7M or anything. Most of all they were able to expand margins back to 48% & reaffirmed their guided $50M annual rev. In my eyes the double beat importance I was seeking. In listening to the conference call which I did several times they caution that there could be delays, which is something that needs to be monitored especially with the Asian MNO LOI. However, highlighting the positive was CFO Jorge, stated that April was extremely strong and they envisioned for an ascending revenue movement throughout the year. I’m bullish on the whole O-RAN adoption (big CAGR over next 8-10yrs) & $AMPG position within. They feel confident a new MNO PO is coming bypassing the LOI stage. So the things that changed imo; Margins compressed and returned (Positive) $5M rev was strong & slightly outperformed (Positive) Add-on PO, believe they’ve exceeded their 40 million LOI by a few million w TELUS 🇨🇦 (Positive) MIMO Northeastern Certification (Positive) Unless some big announcement. I don’t see how it goes further than say $7 till we see Q2 print. But what do I know…

I'm not saying I know one way or the other, I'm simply saying there is some questionability. For example, she is a professional actress, could she convincingly sound traumatized when she is not?

Though the autobiography of Hans von Luck "Panzer Commander" had its moments of obvious self-promotion and questionability, I found the relation of his post-war captivity in the USSR to be the most compelling (and likely credible) part. It certainly meshed with personal stories I've heard from dissidents about what the dysfunction of Socialism was like on a daily basis. It is worth a read of at least that part even for those uninterested in military history as a social critique.

It’s gotten so bad that when well written funny characters of moral questionability get flanderized, people say they got “turned into Deadpool” not knowing he’s also a victim of said flanderization

The AI hate is entirely justified as long as you know ~why~ it's justified. The primary issue with AI itself mostly comes down to 3 things: 1.) The effects of what creating a data center does to both the environment and the local power grid. 2.) The effects that AI has on jobs in the specified field. 3.) AI and it's questionability with Copyright Law Don't get me wrong, AI CAN be good as long as it's used properly and within a specified set of parameters that don't cross boundaries into being problematic for either issue with Data centers themselves in point #1. Doctors using AI to help pinpoint potential things on scans and whatnot to help them properly diagnose a patient = Good. This saves lives, and it's a helpful tool that doesn't put the doctor out of a job. This saves lives and allows the doctor to still have a job so they can't keep a roof over their head and live. It's a Tool. Not a complete replacement. When companies use GenAI, like we see in NTE, and other works that have done the same, it's essentially the company telling you they don't care. ESPECIALLY when the company lies about its usage and how it's used not once, but twice. "We're going to build a data center for our AI and triple the electric bills of everyone on this power grid." "We're going to cut costs by just generating the Images with a prompt instead of paying the artists that we have on staff to do the art. They don't need to pay their bills." The bottom line, it's hurtful to the livelihoods of people who make these images by hand instead of with a prompt, and to those that are impacted by the creation of the datacenter(s) used for the AI generating these things. And to say those things don't matter because "hurr durr muh game" is quite inhumane, and just plain wrong.

As far as original ownership goes. I coined that term myself as far as I know but its pretty self explanatory. The fundamental basis of every trade is ownership. If something doesnt belong to you in the first place I have no reason to trade you anything for it. So what makes something your property? Did you make it? Well it cant be that as that would fundamentally dismantle the basis of capitalism Did you buy it? Is really just putting a hat on a hat cause then it just transfers the goalposts to the person you bought it from. What made it theirs to sell to you in the first place? Inheritance? Same problem as buying it. What made it your ancestors property to begin with? With the added questionability of dismantling the meritocracy talking point of capitalism Hence the concept of original ownership. Because all inheritance/purchasing does is add another middle man. Somewhere along the way there is an original owner. Someone who did not acquire the property through inheritance or purchasing. So what makes it theirs? And youll find in most cases the answer is conquest

I think if she had been private and humble in a period of mourning instead of seeking the limelight and immediately claiming herself CEO, the questionability would not be there. She cannot undo the damage she caused to her own reputation by being so showy. and public.

Scott Jennings just laid out exactly what Democrats will do if they win the midterms: "They will wage 'maximum warfare' on Republicans & impeach President Trump on DAY ONE." His framing: this is bad. His implicit conclusion: voters should be motivated to stop Democrats by voting Republican. Here's the thing. He's right about the playbook. He's wrong about the moral framing. Hakeem Jeffries used the phrase "regime change" yesterday. Senate Democrats have already drafted articles of impeachment around five distinct grievances. The DOJ Select Committee is preparing investigations. The Iran war powers resolution is sitting in committee waiting for a Democratic majority. The Trump family wealth surge is the subject of an active congressional ethics inquiry. If Democrats win the House, every one of these proceeds. Jennings has the strategy correct. Where he's wrong is the assumption that this is unprecedented or unjustified. Republicans wrote the playbook. Reagan-era political warfare gave us Iran-Contra. Bush-era political warfare gave us Whitewater investigations. Obama-era Republican leadership impeached based on Benghazi and gave us Trey Gowdy. Trump-1 was impeached twice by Democrats. Trump-2 has produced a new round of legitimate impeachable conduct. The Hegseth firings, the Iran war's constitutional questionability, the Gold Card visa emoluments, the Trump family wealth surge, and now the SPLC indictment are all serious enough to justify hearings. The "maximum warfare" framing makes it sound like vindictiveness. It is, in part. It's also a constitutional response to specific actions Trump has taken. Both can be true. The actual political question Jennings is dancing around is whether voters should care about constitutional process or about kitchen-table economics. Look at the data: Voters consistently rank inflation, gas prices, and the economy as their top concerns. Iran war fatigue is producing 62% support for ceasefire. Trump's approval is at 39% specifically because of those issues, not because of impeachment threats. The "Democrats will impeach you on day one" framing might be true. It's also not what voters are actually voting on. Voters are voting on whether $4.03 gas, the Iran war, and the housing affordability crisis improve or get worse. Democrats know this. Their actual midterm campaign message is: "Trump caused inflation through Iran war and tariffs." "Trump's tax cuts went to billionaires while costs went up." "Trump's foreign policy isolated America and damaged alliances." "Trump's domestic agenda is benefiting the Trump family while destroying the rest." The impeachment thread is a side conversation among political junkies. The actual campaign is about cost of living. And Republicans are losing on cost of living because the economic data doesn't support their case anymore. Which brings us to Jennings's actual problem. He's pitching a "Democrats are scary, vote Republican" message in an election where the Republican brand is collateral damage from Trump's specific failures. The "maximum warfare" framing might rally the existing GOP base, but the existing GOP base wasn't sufficient to win 2024 without Trump's swing-state coalition. The swing-state coalition is exactly the demographic now defecting based on economic concerns. Jennings's tweet is read by 90% MAGA-aligned accounts who already plan to vote Republican. The 10% who are persuadable swing voters look at "Democrats will impeach Trump on day one" and either: Cheer it (40% of swing voters who want accountability). Don't care (40% who care about gas prices instead). Reject it (20% who view this as healthy oversight). Net effect: zero, possibly negative, on the swing voters who actually decide elections. The smart Republican play in 2026 isn't "scare voters about Democratic impeachment." It's "convince voters Trump deserves another two years to fix what he started." That requires concrete policy success on inflation, the Iran war, housing, or jobs. None of those metrics are improving. So the "scare them with impeachment" message is what's available when the policy story isn't working. Which Republicans will continue running. Because it's all they have left. And which won't work. Because voters aren't deciding elections on procedural questions when their gas costs $4 a gallon. Jennings is one of the smartest GOP operatives in DC. His tweet today is what political messaging looks like when your candidate's economic record is indefensible. You stop arguing about what your guy is doing and start arguing about what the other side might do. That's a defensive posture. Defensive postures lose midterms. Especially when the offense has 8 months of $4 gas to talk about. Jennings knows this. The tweet is doing what's possible, not what's optimal. That's the real signal.