Posts by Kenneth Cruz67

mistybison said:How many people truly possess a deep understanding of politics? Most people base their political opinions on sensationalist news headlines and personal experiences, which are inherently subjective. Some individuals take a more rational approach, while others are driven by emotion, just as they are in all other matters. Everyone is susceptible to media influence and manipulation. While certain individuals are naturally inclined toward extremism, the majority of Americans tend to hover closer to the center than to the fringes.

The motivations for engaging in politics vary widely, and self-interest often outweighs true ideals. This explains why professional politicians frequently switch parties or stances whenever it suits them. For everyone else, changing an opinion is quite easy when the right media influence is applied, especially if they don't hold strong convictions on specific issues.

It is always a double-edged sword.

Political correctness is intended to foster a more tolerant society, yet we frequently observe the opposite effect. Under the pressure of political correctness, some individuals actually become significantly more conservative.

Well, congratulations! You've basically discovered water is wet. 👍

So, I happened to stumble upon this "political compass" quiz today

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test/en

Here’s what my results turned out to be!



😛

Joseph Bailey41 said:People evolve; the brain is neuroplastic, after all. The formation of our beliefs isn't just about how we were raised or our traditions; there are countless social influences at play. Someone who is more susceptible to outside influence or driven by external motivations will likely drift across the political spectrum much more than someone defined by a certain stubbornness. As individuals, we have inherent inclinations that pull us toward specific worldviews, but you can't ignore the "meme transfer" effect—those two forces are constantly interacting, and they play a huge role in one's personal stability. So, rather than pinning a diagnosis on conservatives like Nosonja_ did, I’d say it’s more accurate to look at anyone who shifts their convictions whenever the wind changes direction. It’s actually quite interesting that you brought up Churchill, who struggled with depression; I suspect his quote is a direct reflection of those long-standing mental health battles.

To be clear, that doesn't mean I view people with (or who should have) certain diagnoses as less valuable, less capable, or somehow inferior to those without them. There is absolutely no reason to hate someone because of it, and if I judge by their previous posts, it seems Nosonja_ feels the same way.

Oh, absolutely, a whole mountain of different factors influences political stances beyond just upbringing, tradition, or your immediate environment. But I guess that doesn't really validate your original point that everything boils down strictly to personality traits.

As for Churchill, people love to attribute manic disorders, bipolarity, or depression to him, but honestly, most of that is just common myth and isn't even true.

Besides, when Hitler rolls over France in just twenty days and traps 300,000 of your soldiers within a tiny area, it’s only logical that you wouldn't exactly be in a fantastic mood.

Or take his blunder at Gallipoli where 120,000 people lost their lives. Being in a foul mood after an event like that isn't exactly definitive proof of clinical depression, I guess. 🤣

So, how exactly do people actually shift their political perspectives? I mean, what's the real reason behind everyone swinging from one side of the aisle to the other?

If our political leanings were strictly tied to our core personality traits, then I suppose we’d only see shifts in those truly extreme cases—you know, maybe after someone suffers a stroke or ends up with a literal screwdriver stuck in their frontal lobe. But, as we all pretty much know, that isn't really how things work in the real world.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea if we stuck to psychology on this subforum instead of getting bogged down in historical and political debates. What really upsets people—and why this thread was even started—isn't these specific historical figures (they have their own dedicated threads), but rather the people we share our living spaces with (and the internet) who push all sorts of crazy theories and extreme solutions. Modern leftists are often criticized for being too sexually permissive, specifically for their uncritical acceptance of homosexuality, transsexuality, gender identity, and basically any sexual practice involving consenting adults, no matter what it is. So, bringing up Che Guevara's alleged homophobia feels like passive-aggression to me—kind of an attempt to dodge a direct clash of opinions by using minor jabs that aren't even particularly relevant to the topic at hand.

I've been running into this argument quite a lot lately, usually from people who don't really understand how either of these political movements actually formed. That claim might even hold water if we're talking about political parties and prominent figures on the daily news cycle—getting into politics is a job just like any other, and it attracts people driven by a desire for money and influence. In those cases, their ideological stance is basically just surface-level charm typical of certain personality disorders.

However, when it comes to a genuine desire to shape society, the motivations of people on the left and the right differ drastically. It isn't enough to just look at the horizontal spectrum, though; you also have to add the vertical "authoritarian vs. anti-authoritarian" axis. That gives us the famous political quadrants, representing the four fundamental political orientations. Where someone lands in a quadrant reflects their vision of an "ideal world." Since those four visions are wildly different, it's reasonable to assume they stem from very different personality traits. And that's really what we're trying to discuss here.

You know, it strikes me that the person who started this thread was being somewhat passive-aggressive right from the jump, since they immediately singled out conservatives as a group that needs to be banned and labeled as mentally unstable or sick. If they had just said we should ban extremists from both ends of the political spectrum, well, fine, I could get behind that, but it really feels like their intention was to take a swipe exclusively at conservatives.

Just as an example

Conservatives believe in a flat Earth, or maybe a hollow one, they think vaccines are used to spread autism, they believe in chemtrails, and all sorts of other nonsense.

I guess Men might actually believe in that nonsense more than conservatives do 😬 especially when it comes to the whole vaccine and autism thing.

I've been running into this specific argument quite frequently lately, and most of the time it's coming from people who don't really understand the origins of either political movement. To be fair, the claim is actually somewhat accurate if we are talking about political parties and the prominent figures on the daily news cycle—pursuing politics is a job just like any other, and it tends to attract people with a very strong desire for money and influence, while the ideological foundation of their involvement can sometimes feel as superficial as the charm typical of individuals with certain personality disorders.

However, when you look at the genuine desire to reshape society in a particular way, the motivations for people on the left and the right differ drastically. I suppose it isn't enough to just look at that simple left-right divide; you also have to factor in the vertical axis of authoritarianism versus anti-authoritarianism, which gives us those famous political quadrants representing the four fundamental orientations. Someone's position within a specific quadrant reflects their vision of an "ideal world." Since those four visions are so vastly different, it seems reasonable to assume that they are driven by different personality traits. And that, I think, is exactly what we are trying to discuss here.

Using the "quadrants" thing is really just a more polite way of saying the exact same crap in different packaging.

Churchill once said—if you aren't a liberal in your youth, you have no heart; but if you aren't a conservative in your old age, you have no brain.

I don't really believe that personality traits have such a massive impact on one's political stances, per se. It seems to me that things like upbringing, tradition, and life experience play a much larger role in shaping who we are.

Quote : The Pew Research Center has conducted two surveys that asked about vaccination. One survey in early 2015 asked respondents about whether they thought vaccines were safe, and another survey in late 2014 asked respondents about U.S. vaccination policy and whether vaccination for children should be required or a parent’s choice.

When you start looking at how those Pew survey responses align with people's political leanings, I think you'll notice a pretty fascinating divergence. It seems that the further someone leans toward either the conservative or the liberal side of the spectrum, the more likely they might be to harbor doubts about vaccine safety.

I was actually quite intrigued to see which side is more extreme—the right or the left—so I did a quick Google search and found this article, which honestly just seems to confirm that both sides are essentially cut from the same cloth.

It’s all just a bunch of nonsense, really.

I honestly feel like those on the extreme left are cut from the exact same cloth as the extremists on the right. They both tend to fall into the same patterns of being murderers, terrorists, dictators, and criminals.

Take Che Guevara, for instance; while he's often held up as some sort of icon for the left, I guess you could see him as just another mass murderer and criminal who personally took the lives of hundreds, ordered the deaths of thousands, and sent tens of thousands more off to concentration camps.

What’s particularly interesting—and quite dark—is how openly homophobic he was, apparently even finding a sense of enjoyment in the killing of homosexuals.

Whether it's the right or the left, it feels like the same old garbage, just wrapped up in different packaging.

William Nelson59 said:The road’s been on the property records for maybe 30 years now. Back when the other neighbor was building his vacation house. Between then and 2015, the road basically turned into brush because neither neighbor was even driving to their lots. When that guy was building, they probably used tractors to haul construction materials over there.
Thanks for the help, I guess. If anyone knows who we should actually talk to, let us know. This area falls under the San Diego city jurisdiction.

I'd suggest reaching out to the city administration.

Jose Williams78 said:But what does "public use" actually mean?

A goat trail or a pedestrian walkway doesn't necessarily count as a vehicle road just because someone widened a street and ended up encroaching on someone else's land.

Based on what you're saying, I could basically roll up to my neighbor's yard with an excavator while he's away, bulldoze a path through his property, run down to City Hall to get it registered as a public road, and he’d lose his backyard in a heartbeat? Is that how this works?

Honestly, I’d suggest the person who started this thread check the county land records first to see if that little trail is actually logged as a public way. Start there. See where the boundaries are. If it isn't on the books, things get a lot messier—especially if the neighbor is a local favorite and everyone else is an outsider who won't bother testifying for them.

Well, no, you definitely can't—or rather, you can't do that anymore. The law specifically applies to roads and paths that were already being used by the public at the time the legislation was passed. For any brand-new paths or roads, you'd still need to go through the whole process of getting official designs and permits approved. Plus, I think the original poster already mentioned that the county records show a path that has been there for quite some time, even if it was widened back in 2015.

Though, I suppose technically you could try—you could cut a path through someone's land, and if that person doesn't file an objection within 30 days, they might lose the ability to simply block you and would instead have to take legal action to stop you.🤔

Jose Williams78 said:From what I can tell, that law is talking about unclassified public roads, not private ones.

I honestly think the OP should go back and read that other thread on Service Trips, or maybe the admin should just link these two together.

My two cents? Just sit down with the guy and try to find some middle ground if you can. Otherwise, you might end up getting screwed in a lawsuit and having to pay all the legal fees too.

Did you even ask him if he was cool with you driving through his property before you bought the land and started building? What was his reaction?

In the US, local communities generally have the right to take ownership of any road or thoroughfare that is being used by the public, regardless of whether it is technically private property, and this can often happen without providing compensation to the owners.

Technically speaking, true private roads don't really exist in that sense. Well, they do, but then you essentially need to run it like a business—handling registration, billing, maintenance, insurance, and everything else an entity like ExxonMobil would manage.

It’s pretty straightforward, really; basically anything that functions as a path or a road used by the general public can be transitioned into state ownership without too much of a headache.

Of course, I assume this applies specifically to roads and paths that were already established by the time the law was passed.

If a road was developed after that date, then it ought to have all the proper permits and official designs in place.

If the former owner happens to have some grievances, I guess they could always try to take it to court.

William Nelson59 said:Thanks for the info. Yeah, we knew when we bought the place that the road was listed as private property in the county records (it has its own parcel number labeled ROAD, owned by this guy or that guy). Honestly, I don't get how someone can even own a road as private property? There are like ten residential lots there now (they used to be just fields...). It basically means if someone buys a lot there, they wouldn't be able to get in by car or truck. The road was totally overgrown anyway; nobody would've bothered driving there. But look, now that Exelon has expanded things, our neighbor is being difficult. Even though we offered him money, he won't let us access our property by car. Walking is fine, I guess, though he grumbles about that too. We always just park at the first neighbor's place near the street; he lets us. But this whole thing with him putting up a gate caught us off guard. I guess the question is, is he actually allowed to put a gate there?

If there is a physical road there, maybe you could head down to the local municipal office and ask them to register it as a public local road under California ownership, and then hopefully the whole issue will just resolve itself. (You might want to check out the state highway laws, specifically articles 123 through 133)

He just left them all in the dust! 🤣

Jason Campbell70 said:I suppose Mercedes is incredibly fast because they really nailed both the engine performance and the chassis aerodynamics.

I think you might have overlooked the driver! ☕

I really think Mercedes just absolutely crushed it 🤦

If you’re really curious about who the greatest designer out there actually is, I suppose you should start by asking yourself which Formula 1 car stands as the absolute GOAT. Once you've settled on that, just track down the genius behind its engineering and aesthetic design.

As for me, I don't think any single Goldman Sachs car would even crack my personal top five.

mellowtiger83 said:In my view, it is better to go for five—even six engines over the season. That way, you can extract more performance from every single unit since it doesn't need to last as long.

Red Bull should specifically adopt this tactic. Even if they start at the back, they are headed for a top 5 finish regardless. Meanwhile, there is always the chance that Mercedes or Ferrari might lose ground due to an engine failure and pick up a penalty themselves; it isn't exactly a massive handicap.

It really all comes down to the overall development dynamics, I suppose. If you’re already mapping out three major upgrades for the car, then a brand-new engine might not actually mean all that much in the grand scheme of things, maybe.

It looks like the teams over at Renault have already locked in four engines for the season. I suppose they might be aiming for those penalty penalties to grab extra engine upgrades, maybe more for development purposes than actually needing the reliability boost.
McLaren has announced an aero update ahead of the race in Australia. Plus, word on the street is that their tire degradation is looking really promising.
The big question mark this year is whether Ferrari will slip in the standings, and if so, by how much. That ban on oil burning seems to have really thrown them for a loop.

I think I saw Fernando Alonso clocking in at 4 laps on HS under 1.18.
Actually, it looks like his 1.16.720 was wiped away because he apparently cut the final chicane.

stormytiger4 said:I haven't seen that anywhere. Give me some more info and a link if you can.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=986O...outu.be&t=1173

Isn't Nitko going to weigh in on those rumors regarding Honda and the late-night engine swaps?

stormybadger8 said:And they were pretty slow while they were at it...
It’s obvious they spent the whole day chasing sponsors and playing around on Hypersoft tires, probably too scared to touch the frontrunners who were running much harder compounds...
I just hope that exhaust issue keeps giving them hell and they were stuck in some aggressive safe mode, otherwise they're in real trouble...

Anyway, McLaren didn't get nearly enough laps in...
Laps (by engine manufacturer)
# Team Laps
1. Honda 324
2. Ferrari 256
3. Mercedes 249.33
4. Renault 247.33

Laps (by constructor)
# Team Laps
1. Toro Rosso 324
...
7. McLaren 260

The race in Barcelona was about 60 laps total...
Honda managed to survive about 5 races worth of mileage😉
And no, it didn't die; everything worked perfectly without a single hiccup... so it'll likely be plenty reliable...
Based on what we've seen so far, that's the engine with the most miles on the grid, so let's call it the "most reliable" one for now...

That doesn't mean Renault won't be solid too, but it definitely means McLaren isn't a factory team anymore. It looks like McLaren seriously screwed up by ignoring Alonso's insistence that Honda was junk...
This might just end up being another one of Fernando Alonso's legendary boneheaded moves...

Alonso actually put together a lap today where he was the fastest of everyone through the first two sectors, only to drop off and go over two seconds slower than his own best time in that third sector. I'm not sure how closely you all follow these testing sessions, but even someone like Gary Anderson—who isn't exactly known for being a McLaren fanboy—is actually giving their car some serious credit.