This hearing was a total disaster for Bondi. There was no hiding what a monster she is, and it's now come out that photographers captured images of her burn book which included info from illegal DOJ surveillance of members of Congress search histories of the Epstein files. Bondi is spying on Congress while they review the Epstein files, a blatant violation of the separation of powers.
I'm sorry to upend your thiughts, but the dow is going really well right now.
if you have empathy/ a conscience/ a soul--trump is not appointing you to anything
Pam Blondi the lapdog
I don’t wish harm but to very few people, and Pam Bondi is one of them. I would pay big money to be able to punch that bitch right in the kisser.
Funny you should say that. In this administration everything is for sale, you just can't afford it.
I'd buy tickets to that show
Just make sure you wash the shit off your fist afterward.
I'll just leave this here...
A psychopath is an individual with a personality disorder characterized by a lack of empathy, shallow emotions, impulsivity, and persistent antisocial behavior. While often charming superficially, they exhibit callous disregard for others' rights and feelings, frequently lying or manipulating to achieve goals. They generally do not feel remorse or guilt, and are prone to dangerous, irresponsible, or criminal actions.
Key Characteristics and Traits
Lack of Empathy/Remorse: Inability to feel guilt or genuine emotion, allowing them to exploit others.
Superficial Charm/Manipulation: Often appear normal, pleasant, or charming to mask their true nature.
Antisocial Behavior: Disregard for social norms, laws, and safety.
Impulsivity and Irresponsibility: Prone to boredom, poor behavioral control, and high-risk actions.
Grandiosity: Often have an inflated sense of self-worth.
Isn't this the point?
That rep for the Epstein Class had every intention of going there with her little burn book to show that she's still Donvict's gal and to give a middle finger to any decent person in the country. If the victims are harmed in the process, then that's perfect, because with the conservatives cruelty is the point.
The lack of commom decency from these "federal officials" reveals their false claims of holding certain beliefs as their own, rather than just an advertisement to gain entry to these offices. So of course it's treason when their lies fall on un-groomed ears so they are 'performing' as their freedom depends on it. The flippant responses to seasoned congress members - the newly installed beligerant and farsical congress members - the lack of quality acting is only complemented with the actual white supremist beliefs echoed and chanted repeatedly, while kissing up to thier own in the most bizarre fashion of 'authority' worship I have seen outside of B-movie dialog.
They have shown themselves to be utter frauds on the very single issue they pretended to care so much about.
Blondi and Patel especially show how completely unserious the Republicans were about child sex-trafficking. They only showed lots of concern when lots of idiots fell for that Pizzagate/Qanon horseshit because they thought it would be the Democrats that are the perps.
I keep asking - have the Republicans even met their own party? It's full of Republicans. And they think the Democratic Party is going to have all the pervs?
Doesn't watching her speak at these hearings feel like watching a shitty instagram reel? Like, where did she learn her fake-ass behavioral cues and gestures?
The hearing was almost an exact repeat of what I have seen from Bondi in the recent past. Why did they think grilling her again would result in a different outcome?
The thing that kills me about this whole shitshow is this.
You have women working for an incredibly powerful, wealthy. charismatic, connected, bullying man. If she goes along with him she will be ok but if she steps out of line she will lose everything, maybe even be killed. It will be absolutely unimaginably horrific. She has no friends but the ones who are friends with this man, no support besides what this man allows. She is dependent on him for everything. She gets credible death threats from enemies. She derives power from her association with him and takes some pride in surviving the shit that has come her way.
Now. Obviously I am describing a woman being abused here. But am I describing Bondi or the Epstein victims?
Bondi doesn't see her own abuse. And that's the saddest part of all of this to me. She looks down on these women, thinks she's better than them. She's just like them. Just as used, just as disposable.
Bondi chose the situation she currently is in. Epstein's victims did not.
Wow. I see what you are saying and it blew my mind a little bit. Good reasoning. Thanks!
Bondi’s the kind of person whose first response to hearing about the Epstein file, or any rape, is, “What were they wearing?”
Or checks the state of Dow Jones and uses that as a jumping-off point to praise a useless dumbass like Donvict and say he's the bestest president that ever did presidenting and did you guys even apologize to him yet?
The best part of the hearing was when the Democratic woman who pointed out that of course we are asking questions about what YOU and the DOJ did in relation to Epstein, since that's what the hearing is about. Blondi tried to pretend she was really baffled that people were not talking about all the shit she wanted to distract with, LOL.
Because that’s what she did, so it is right that they feel that way. DOJ don’t give a shit about them. Only the people in power.
It's only a matter of time before Trump throws people under the bus, and hopefully she will be among the first.
This administration looks at empathy like it's a disease to be eradicated. Don't put your hopes in them, you will be greatly disappointed.
Empathy is one of the earliest symptoms of the woke-mind virus. Let it get outta hand, and soon you'll have mother fuckers critically thinking and shit. Unacceptable. Now where's my Brawndo‽ Like a flower, I need them electrolytes
1 in 5 people you meet lack empathy. I got these numbers from reporting the US military made to the office of general accounting. The military gives everyone a psychiatric evaluation. Its the only place to get a accurate number on this. Due to the fact that almost all of them avoid any type of therapy. I can't find the link right now but if I find it later I will post it.
Edit: Here you are. For my not surprising number of doubters. This is where I started when I went down the path toward finding the numbers I'm using. I rarely bookmark anything on my phone as its barely useful when doing anything serious but I bookmarked these pages on it.
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/narcissist-signs https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/mental-health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/npd-statistics/
Its up to all of my detractors here to read through it. Here is a hint if you disagree and get upset reading it you may be one of the people I'm talking about. Not that you will admit it.
If you read this and notice that some of the people around you who cause you pain and stress act and do these things to you. You may be a victim. I encourage you to seek therapy. Those that have this problem will not want you to and try to convince you its not right to do so.
The most common thing they will do is try to scare you and embarrass you. The best thing you can do is not tell them until you have been in therapy for a while. There is no point in arguing with them. They will never admit fault. Its one of their most telling traits. A inability to admit fault and truly apologize. The best they can ever do is feel sorry you feel that way. Not sorry they hurt you but just sorry you hold them accountable for it. That is how they are crippled emotionally.
The only caveat is that people who want to be soldiers aren't necessarily representative of the general population. Plenty of people join the military because they want to kill people.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the number is around 20% of those who enlist.
I'm pretty sure the military is a general slice of the population.
Men make up ~80% of the military in the US. Already we are off to a bad start if you think the military is a ‘general slice’.
Using the military as your source comes with a whole lot of biases. Military enrolment is not mandatory in the US, so your numbers are already skewed by factors of wealth, ‘patriotism’, and gender.
You can assume that people who are not open to the possibility of killing a human being are filtered from their ranks by default. And then being exposed to the life of a soldier (especially in a war zone) can skew the way that a person interacts with their world.
The military doesn't give everyone a psych eval.
Anyone seeking a higher clearance goes through one. But that's not a full accounting, the vast majority of people never need a clearance beyond the general Secret that almost everyone gets. No real psych eval for that.
Some specialized jobs get them as well. And I think some combat jobs get them by default... but mostly no. It's just the standard, "can this person both follow orders and be trusted to do the job they were hired for?"
Anyone who fucks up which most of the lower functioning ones with NPD get tested as well. It not a choice between the military and some other large sampling. Its the only place where its done at all other than in the field of psychology. which is a lot fewer people and well most of the time people in that field are victims of the subject matter we are discussing.
I know this because I have spent hours and hours reading and search for information on it and nothing you say will change it. I sure am getting a lot of push back about it here three 'people' trying tell me I'm wrong is kinda telling in and of itself. No argument you make changes anything.
I was a member of the US military. I never got any form of psych eval, and neither did anyone I knew, except for people who had a Top Secret clearance.
So your hours of reading are just wrong, or you didn't understand something. It happens.
So yeah, the people who were likely to get a psych eval were the people most likely to need one. And that creates selection bias.
Its funny how I keep getting push back for this but have got confirmation on my information from others. You were a grunt I guess and not a trouble maker so you slide on by. I guess its the people I asked since one of the people who confirmed it was a ex EOD tech and a army ranger. A real stable and trustworthy person whose word carries more weight with me than any random internet stranger.
The numbers I got were reporting from the military to the office of general accounting. Like I said the links I provided was the start of the search not the end. I know how to look up information and its not my job to do it for you or appease your doubt. Why would it create a selection bias? Because the people are smarter or more useful to the military?
I made NCO. I still never got a psych eval. It wasn't part of the process.
Again, if I had needed a Top Secret clearance there would have been one, but I never needed anything beyond Secret, which did not come with a psych eval.
The vast majority of people never get Top Secret, and never get a psych eval unless something comes up, like a major fuckup or certain combat roles.
Three " 'people' " huh. That seem to suggest a lack of empathy towards anyone who applies a minimum amount critical thinking.
No one should take a claim like that at face value, period. If there is some evidence for it then the burden of proof is on those who make the claim, not the other way around.
Must be a part of that 20 percent to dehumanize anyone who questions you so easily. Maybe there is some truth to the claim after all.
I am a detractor who read these sources. You can too if you have any interest in the subject.
The first one does not mention statistics at all, just describes why you shouldn't call people narcisistits because it has a specific definition that is overly applied. Ironically enough.
The second source does mention some statistics. But actually verifies the questions that were raised by other curious folks. It states that only .5 percent of the population experiences NPD and that 20 percent of the military does.
This verifies that the military survey is NOT the only source of statistics and that 20 percent of every one you meet doesn't necessarily "lack empathy".
So, a relief, I suppose, for now.
Although, the claim that anyone who questions a random internet comment are all the same person and are definitely controlling narcissistic a holes has not been verified.
But it's probably true. I will not look any further into it for fear of self reflection.
20% of people outright lacking empathy is a lot. With such a large percentage, how can you be sure you aren't one of them?
Yesterday I helped to clarify why AIPAC fucked up in the NJ special election. When my response was followed with the joke "Ah, thank you for not explaining that while literally walking out the d", it started collecting downvotes. The "not explaining" seemed to stand out as negative, and I admit I was a little confused myself. However, instead of throwing shade or downvoting it myself, I just asked a simple question about what they meant. The response: "(I was walking out the door, like the author while writing the article)" put everything to rest. It was a joke about how the author of the posted article trailed off without coming to a clear conclusion.
Yet even after this clarification was posted, you jumped in with the worst negative assumption about the interaction. You weren't seeking clarity or offering anyone support, you were looking to attack. Even after being respectfully asked to re-read the conversation, you double and tripled-down on this incorrect negative assumption. I feel that this attitude is evident here, as you challenge your "detractors" and charge that they are the ones lacking empathy. Don't forget that every accusation is a confession.
Ultimately, I don't agree with your 20% statistic. Mostly this is because I don't believe in binary assignments, such as having or lacking empathy. We are all capable of making positive assumptions about each other's intentions. Some of us just choose not to in certain circumstances, but there is always room for change.
The only place to get an accurate number on this thing you should totally believe about everyone you meet is a test that the military definitely doesn't give to everyone but can maybe be sourced probably.
Nope. The only place to get any idea about a true number is the military. Anyone who needs a security clearance gets tested. Which is more and more everyday. Anyone who fucks up gets tested. Which is most of them. There is no other place that can give you a accurate number due to the nature of people with no empathy. Instead of arguing with me go look for numbers on Cluster B disorders Particularly NPD. Anyone who lacks empathy exhibits it in some form. What you will find is a very low number of these people seek out help. Most of the testing done in the civilian world is court ordered. They will never seek out help for something they see as a superpower. What possible problem could there be for not giving a shit about others?
There is no other source with as large of a sampling of US citizens. I really wish I had time to find that site with all the information about it. It had a huge number of nested pages outlining the psychology of these assholes.
The only other place where testing is common is among people who are in a psychology field, either as a student or a practicing professional.
The number is 1 in 5 and its probably higher than that. I don't care what you believe I know I've developed a really good skill at spotting them. Plenty of tells with their sort.
Why would the military be a representative sample? Maybe when we had the draft, sure. But even then their were conscientious objectors, and of course women weren't drafted. And plenty of people voluntarily enlisted even in the Vietnam era.
Is it not reasonable to expect that those with high empathy levels would be less likely to voluntarily enlist? Knowing nothing else, I would expect the military to select for those with low empathy levels. It's an obviously useful ability if your job is to kill other human beings. And you're supposed to carry out orders without any consideration for the consequences of those orders or who they hurt. That sounds like an extremely low-empathy environment.
Anther pointless argument that ignores what I've said to try to tell me the military is a poor place to get that information. Totally ignoring its the only place it exists. Also another useless pointless argument to try to convince me that all the people that join the army are killers. They are not natural killers and if you actually knew any or any vets you would know that.
I suspect at this point I'm talking to the same people who just switch accounts to try to gaslight me. There is data from other sources but the military is the largest sample. The next being medical students. I think people from the psychology field are next and I haven't bothered to look again (why would I?) to see their exact percentage but I recall its around 14 percent. The number that is reported by trained professionals is absurdly low because people without empathy are terrified of and hate therapy.
I'm secure in my knowledge. My therapist and my psychiatrist have looked at the same information I do. Real people with real degree's agree with me and nothing some random person on the internet says to try to argue against it will change my mind.
Its amazing how many are jumping in here to argue against it. Its not the first time but the baseless incorrect assumptions are always the same.
That's a really weird thing to say because you posted a source that provided statistics beyond the military survey, which pointedly proved that statement false.
Then you denied saying that the military was the only source when that fact was pointed out.
But you are now trippling down on that false claim.
It seems like you might have the inability to admit fault and truly apologize. Which is also what you accused others of.
Might be time to take a break and question some preconceived notions. Like, no hate. You are on one right now. 20 percent of people are not who you think they are. It's probably healthy to realize that.
Cool cool. And how does this source you wish you could find about a biased sample of the public, the only one possible of course, quantify "lacks empathy".
Go away. when I have time and at home I will find it and post it but I'm sure you will find fault with it as well.
Until then I will remained convinced that 20 percent of the entire human population is some quantified amount of psychopathic.
links in my original post. I drew three people or three accounts arguing against it this time. Not one in five but consider the subject and the subjects of the subject.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.