|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 06 2020 07:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2020 05:44 Arghmyliver wrote:On August 06 2020 04:23 Danglars wrote:On August 06 2020 03:55 Arghmyliver wrote:On August 06 2020 01:16 Danglars wrote:On August 06 2020 01:01 Arghmyliver wrote:On August 06 2020 00:08 Danglars wrote:On August 05 2020 23:40 brian wrote:
I suppose one could argue that nearly every election in recent history was a clean 50/50 split with the occasional 60/40 but i can’t see how that would possibly help any sort of conversation. Under 5% difference so it rounds it away (aka the election was closer to 60-40 than 50-50 + Show Spoiler +looking at the major party candidates, of course )? Obama (once), Clinton (twice), GHW Bush, Reagan (twice). So 6 times in the last 10 elections? I'd say the science says "nearly every election" is wrong. On August 05 2020 23:58 Arghmyliver wrote:On August 05 2020 23:25 Danglars wrote:On August 05 2020 16:35 KT_Elwood wrote:[quote] Actually Clinton got roughly 3 million more votes than Trump in 2016. So he is representing some more dirt in Colorado, but not the 50% of the US-Citizens ........................Trump....................Clinton Popular vote___62,984,828_____65,853,514 Percentage ____46.1% __________48.2% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election Trump got 46% of the vote, and you’re happy that’s not 50%? I’ve got some bad news for you about the tight neighborhood of those percentages. (One might even decide to round to the nearest tens to get a rough approximation of how the country voted) Oh what faith your argument has, it could turn the undead! But seriously, we could also decide to round to the nearest hundred and sit here wondering why we have a president at all when everyone got 0% of the vote. Don't be a dumbass. Don't try to blunder your way through a very close election to announce "50 percent of the (voting) population voted for him" to be wrong. I think it's an easy choice, but some very passionate people on this forum want to play games with a 2% popular vote margin to declare something untrue. And like a bad weed, it keeps coming back. May I quip, maybe it's time to accept the 2016 election results? What do you mean "Blunder your way through a close election" exactly? You know, I voted, but otherwise had little to do with the logistics. Did you mean those passionate people want to "play games with a 2% popular vote margin" like declare that 45 lost the popular vote by 2%? Because that's not "playing games" that's called "describing reality." Here we can "play a game." Every ten seconds, we both put 50 cents into a bowl and then I will take 52 cents out and you take out 48 cents. It's a great game because we both put in 50 cents, and both take out ~50 cents so you won't ever lose money! Are you suggesting we should shut up about how much of an odious heap of skin flaps held together by greed our current president is because many (but not most) of our fellow countrymen voted for him in 2016? If so, then I suggest you stick your suggestion somewhere suggestive. No one is arguing about who won the 2016 election, who got the most electoral votes, who got the most popular votes, etc. It is a FACT that 45 got the most electoral votes and was elected to the office of president based on the current electoral system. It is also a FACT that 45 lost the popular vote. Maybe it's time for you to accept those results. You're getting a little distracted here, so let me recenter. Are you still claiming declaring the election 50% is tantamount to "we could also decide to round to the nearest hundred and sit here wondering why we have a president at all when everyone got 0% of the vote. Don't be a dumbass." I think it's an accurate statement of a very close election result with a margin of 2%. I'm fine with anyone saying Trump lost the election by 3 million votes and 2% of the popular vote. I'm not okay with these handwringers opposed to "50% of the population voted for him" to say (AkTually) "Clinton got roughly 3 million more votes." Yeah, she got 3 million more votes in roughly a 50-50 election. Taking just the votes for the two major party candidates, that's 51% to 49%. If 51% to 49% is a big enough difference to declare "50% voted for Trump" a lie, then perhaps your real gripe is that the other guy said Clinton won by 3 million, when actually it was 2.87 million. Because that's apparently where we're at on approximations, and probably not worth further investment of time unless more than one person and one half-hearted person wants to gripe. Imean. There are a lot of problems here. 1. If you want to say "The election was approximately 50-50," that's fine, but a misleading statement so people will probably correct you. It’s a true statement, just like Hillary got approximately 3 million more votes, and her margin of popular vote victory was approximately 2%. I’m not really in the business of hammering the “true but misleading” part among people that never claimed Trump won the popular vote. I look at the quote in context, and he was talking about the size of Trumps support as it relates to bashing Trump or bashing his voters. It’s clear he was talking in rough measures and not intending to mislead, which made the “correction” an utterly foolish thing to do. The rest of what you posted about were examples of mine to get you to your #1 statement (“That’s fine”) and away from talking about zombie points in a close election. I have no interest in discussing the racism allegations, or who we should bash or shouldn’t bash, with you. If you want to know if he was conflating the voting public with the actual public, go ask him. To label 3 million people based on your extreme value judgement of one act I really have no idea what you mean, because I didn’t see anybody trying to label the margin of victory. It raises questions on which 3 million you’re talking about, because they represent no distinct population of people. It's a true but misleading statement. To become upset when people clarify indicates a lack of awareness. "An eye for an eye..." - Mahatma Ghandi The above is an accurate quotation, but you should not be surprised if someone were to clarify the full context. The 3 million is in reference to the 3 million more popular votes received by Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. By reducing the ratio to 50/50 you are basically discounting those people or counting 3 million more for 45. In order to make the ratio of D/R 1:1 you can follow the following formulae; For 1:1 ratio R = D How much more is D than R? The answer is actually in the formula below expressed as a difference. D-R = 3 million You can express the same quantity in an addition formula if you add "R" to both sides. D = R+3 million Whether these 3 million people exist outside of the current US voter base or are drawn from within it is unknown in this hypothetical scenario. Since you arbitrarily declare a ratio and make a value statement based on that ratio, an arbitrary number of peoples' opinions are misrepresented by your statement. A different solution would be to say that you mislabel 1.5 mil as racist by moving them from Hillary's vote count to 45's but I assumed you were drawing the needed population from third party voters since you seem to discount their opinions anyways. Of course, if you want to avoid the embarrassment of having to explain which peoples' opinions you were misrepresenting, you could always make a more accurate statement to begin with. My objections to these basically constitute points I've already raised, so I think we're done here. If I were more like you in alleging attempts to mislead with true facts, I'd say you were rounding Hillary's count higher for malign motives. And repeat twice over that she didn't get 3 million more votes. But I'm only teasing on a subject that's definitely run its course.
I don't know, your "objections" indicate a lack of understanding of statistics and human nature. Don't be shocked if people call out your bullshit, Danglars, it's low hanging fruit.
|
On August 06 2020 07:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2020 02:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:Tuesday's primaries great winners have been the progressive democrats and moderate republicans. That's two really good news. I am hopeful that not only the progressive democrat keep winning and dictate more and more of the party's agenda, but that "moderate" republicans slowly start to reclaim their party. Source It's unfortunate the Democrats fight progressive policy so fiercely, but good they lost in MO-1 for sure. Rashida Tlaib booing Hillary and keeping her seat is a positive sign as well. Not a good sign the best improvements to the party have come despite their robust opposition to them though.
That's the point of conservatism. When a new, superior idea first comes around, it is almost never immediately adopted outside of the scientific community. Conservatives have a talent for assuming the moment in time that they exist in also happens to represent the pinnacle of human existence and the completion of human culture.
The idea that we may still have work left to do or that there will be thousands of years of human cultural advancement after we are all gone is complete nonsense to conservatives. Since they exist in this moment, this moment is probably the end point of human development. To them, we learned about slavery, women as property, segregation and all those other ideas, moved past them, and we have now completed our advancement.
The self awareness to wonder "wait, what if people in the old days had the same reaction to abolishing segregation as I am having to this modern cultural epiphany?" is simply not present. They don't seem able to grasp that kind of thought. It is sad and unfortunate.
|
On August 06 2020 04:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2020 03:55 Arghmyliver wrote:On August 06 2020 01:16 Danglars wrote:On August 06 2020 01:01 Arghmyliver wrote:On August 06 2020 00:08 Danglars wrote:On August 05 2020 23:40 brian wrote:
I suppose one could argue that nearly every election in recent history was a clean 50/50 split with the occasional 60/40 but i can’t see how that would possibly help any sort of conversation. Under 5% difference so it rounds it away (aka the election was closer to 60-40 than 50-50 + Show Spoiler +looking at the major party candidates, of course )? Obama (once), Clinton (twice), GHW Bush, Reagan (twice). So 6 times in the last 10 elections? I'd say the science says "nearly every election" is wrong. On August 05 2020 23:58 Arghmyliver wrote:On August 05 2020 23:25 Danglars wrote:On August 05 2020 16:35 KT_Elwood wrote:On August 05 2020 16:20 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 05 2020 15:45 120720 wrote:
People should stop bashing Trump, what about the millions that voted for him, think like him, do worse than him?
Trump did not stole and election and made everyone racist, he stole an election while everyone was racist.
Look at your two candidates right now, 80 years old had a stroke guy or 80 years old representation of half the population guy.
Other guy everyone regrets is 80 years old want to change the whole country against the views of half of them.
Your country can hardly be united since you have such different views...
I don't understand why we can't bash trump. Because 50 percent of the population voted for him? Because the country is racist? Because Biden is equally old? People are criticizing trump for the job he is doing, for his personality and for his policies. None of that can be dismissed because of any of the points you brought up. Actually Clinton got roughly 3 million more votes than Trump in 2016. So he is representing some more dirt in Colorado, but not the 50% of the US-Citizens ........................Trump....................Clinton Popular vote___62,984,828_____65,853,514 Percentage ____46.1% __________48.2% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election Trump got 46% of the vote, and you’re happy that’s not 50%? I’ve got some bad news for you about the tight neighborhood of those percentages. (One might even decide to round to the nearest tens to get a rough approximation of how the country voted) Oh what faith your argument has, it could turn the undead! But seriously, we could also decide to round to the nearest hundred and sit here wondering why we have a president at all when everyone got 0% of the vote. Don't be a dumbass. Don't try to blunder your way through a very close election to announce "50 percent of the (voting) population voted for him" to be wrong. I think it's an easy choice, but some very passionate people on this forum want to play games with a 2% popular vote margin to declare something untrue. And like a bad weed, it keeps coming back. May I quip, maybe it's time to accept the 2016 election results? What do you mean "Blunder your way through a close election" exactly? You know, I voted, but otherwise had little to do with the logistics. Did you mean those passionate people want to "play games with a 2% popular vote margin" like declare that 45 lost the popular vote by 2%? Because that's not "playing games" that's called "describing reality." Here we can "play a game." Every ten seconds, we both put 50 cents into a bowl and then I will take 52 cents out and you take out 48 cents. It's a great game because we both put in 50 cents, and both take out ~50 cents so you won't ever lose money! Are you suggesting we should shut up about how much of an odious heap of skin flaps held together by greed our current president is because many (but not most) of our fellow countrymen voted for him in 2016? If so, then I suggest you stick your suggestion somewhere suggestive. No one is arguing about who won the 2016 election, who got the most electoral votes, who got the most popular votes, etc. It is a FACT that 45 got the most electoral votes and was elected to the office of president based on the current electoral system. It is also a FACT that 45 lost the popular vote. Maybe it's time for you to accept those results. You're getting a little distracted here, so let me recenter. Are you still claiming declaring the election 50% is tantamount to "we could also decide to round to the nearest hundred and sit here wondering why we have a president at all when everyone got 0% of the vote. Don't be a dumbass." I think it's an accurate statement of a very close election result with a margin of 2%. I'm fine with anyone saying Trump lost the election by 3 million votes and 2% of the popular vote. I'm not okay with these handwringers opposed to "50% of the population voted for him" to say (AkTually) "Clinton got roughly 3 million more votes." Yeah, she got 3 million more votes in roughly a 50-50 election. Taking just the votes for the two major party candidates, that's 51% to 49%. If 51% to 49% is a big enough difference to declare "50% voted for Trump" a lie, then perhaps your real gripe is that the other guy said Clinton won by 3 million, when actually it was 2.87 million. Because that's apparently where we're at on approximations, and probably not worth further investment of time unless more than one person and one half-hearted person wants to gripe. Imean. There are a lot of problems here. 1. If you want to say "The election was approximately 50-50," that's fine, but a misleading statement so people will probably correct you. It’s a true statement, just like Hillary got approximately 3 million more votes, and her margin of popular vote victory was approximately 2%. I’m not really in the business of hammering the “true but misleading” part among people that never claimed Trump won the popular vote. I look at the quote in context, and he was talking about the size of Trumps support as it relates to bashing Trump or bashing his voters. It’s clear he was talking in rough measures and not intending to mislead, which made the “correction” an utterly foolish thing to do. The rest of what you posted about were examples of mine to get you to your #1 statement (“That’s fine”) and away from talking about zombie points in a close election. I have no interest in discussing the racism allegations, or who we should bash or shouldn’t bash, with you. If you want to know if he was conflating the voting public with the actual public, go ask him. I really have no idea what you mean, because I didn’t see anybody trying to label the margin of victory. It raises questions on which 3 million you’re talking about, because they represent no distinct population of people.
Everyone knows that you are supposed to round at the “millions” sig fig. It’s like Stalin’s joke: Misrepresenting 3 million is statistics. Misrepresenting 2,864,974 as 3 million is a tragedy. Forgetting about 7,804,213 is a farce.
|
Ohio Governor Mike DeWine tested positive right before he was to meet with Trump today before a campaign event at the Whirlpool factory, whomp whomp.
|
|
|
On August 07 2020 01:14 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2020 04:23 Danglars wrote:On August 06 2020 03:55 Arghmyliver wrote:On August 06 2020 01:16 Danglars wrote:On August 06 2020 01:01 Arghmyliver wrote:On August 06 2020 00:08 Danglars wrote:On August 05 2020 23:40 brian wrote:
I suppose one could argue that nearly every election in recent history was a clean 50/50 split with the occasional 60/40 but i can’t see how that would possibly help any sort of conversation. Under 5% difference so it rounds it away (aka the election was closer to 60-40 than 50-50 + Show Spoiler +looking at the major party candidates, of course )? Obama (once), Clinton (twice), GHW Bush, Reagan (twice). So 6 times in the last 10 elections? I'd say the science says "nearly every election" is wrong. On August 05 2020 23:58 Arghmyliver wrote:On August 05 2020 23:25 Danglars wrote:On August 05 2020 16:35 KT_Elwood wrote:On August 05 2020 16:20 Broetchenholer wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand why we can't bash trump. Because 50 percent of the population voted for him? Because the country is racist? Because Biden is equally old? People are criticizing trump for the job he is doing, for his personality and for his policies. None of that can be dismissed because of any of the points you brought up. Actually Clinton got roughly 3 million more votes than Trump in 2016. So he is representing some more dirt in Colorado, but not the 50% of the US-Citizens ........................Trump....................Clinton Popular vote___62,984,828_____65,853,514 Percentage ____46.1% __________48.2% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election Trump got 46% of the vote, and you’re happy that’s not 50%? I’ve got some bad news for you about the tight neighborhood of those percentages. (One might even decide to round to the nearest tens to get a rough approximation of how the country voted) Oh what faith your argument has, it could turn the undead! But seriously, we could also decide to round to the nearest hundred and sit here wondering why we have a president at all when everyone got 0% of the vote. Don't be a dumbass. Don't try to blunder your way through a very close election to announce "50 percent of the (voting) population voted for him" to be wrong. I think it's an easy choice, but some very passionate people on this forum want to play games with a 2% popular vote margin to declare something untrue. And like a bad weed, it keeps coming back. May I quip, maybe it's time to accept the 2016 election results? What do you mean "Blunder your way through a close election" exactly? You know, I voted, but otherwise had little to do with the logistics. Did you mean those passionate people want to "play games with a 2% popular vote margin" like declare that 45 lost the popular vote by 2%? Because that's not "playing games" that's called "describing reality." Here we can "play a game." Every ten seconds, we both put 50 cents into a bowl and then I will take 52 cents out and you take out 48 cents. It's a great game because we both put in 50 cents, and both take out ~50 cents so you won't ever lose money! Are you suggesting we should shut up about how much of an odious heap of skin flaps held together by greed our current president is because many (but not most) of our fellow countrymen voted for him in 2016? If so, then I suggest you stick your suggestion somewhere suggestive. No one is arguing about who won the 2016 election, who got the most electoral votes, who got the most popular votes, etc. It is a FACT that 45 got the most electoral votes and was elected to the office of president based on the current electoral system. It is also a FACT that 45 lost the popular vote. Maybe it's time for you to accept those results. You're getting a little distracted here, so let me recenter. Are you still claiming declaring the election 50% is tantamount to "we could also decide to round to the nearest hundred and sit here wondering why we have a president at all when everyone got 0% of the vote. Don't be a dumbass." I think it's an accurate statement of a very close election result with a margin of 2%. I'm fine with anyone saying Trump lost the election by 3 million votes and 2% of the popular vote. I'm not okay with these handwringers opposed to "50% of the population voted for him" to say (AkTually) "Clinton got roughly 3 million more votes." Yeah, she got 3 million more votes in roughly a 50-50 election. Taking just the votes for the two major party candidates, that's 51% to 49%. If 51% to 49% is a big enough difference to declare "50% voted for Trump" a lie, then perhaps your real gripe is that the other guy said Clinton won by 3 million, when actually it was 2.87 million. Because that's apparently where we're at on approximations, and probably not worth further investment of time unless more than one person and one half-hearted person wants to gripe. Imean. There are a lot of problems here. 1. If you want to say "The election was approximately 50-50," that's fine, but a misleading statement so people will probably correct you. It’s a true statement, just like Hillary got approximately 3 million more votes, and her margin of popular vote victory was approximately 2%. I’m not really in the business of hammering the “true but misleading” part among people that never claimed Trump won the popular vote. I look at the quote in context, and he was talking about the size of Trumps support as it relates to bashing Trump or bashing his voters. It’s clear he was talking in rough measures and not intending to mislead, which made the “correction” an utterly foolish thing to do. The rest of what you posted about were examples of mine to get you to your #1 statement (“That’s fine”) and away from talking about zombie points in a close election. I have no interest in discussing the racism allegations, or who we should bash or shouldn’t bash, with you. If you want to know if he was conflating the voting public with the actual public, go ask him. To label 3 million people based on your extreme value judgement of one act I really have no idea what you mean, because I didn’t see anybody trying to label the margin of victory. It raises questions on which 3 million you’re talking about, because they represent no distinct population of people. Everyone knows that you are supposed to round at the “millions” sig fig. It’s like Stalin’s joke: Misrepresenting 3 million is statistics. Misrepresenting 2,864,974 as 3 million is a tragedy. Forgetting about 7,804,213 is a farce.
I really should've found a better example of "Arguing the nefarious intent of using 50% in place of 46.1%, is akin to saying ________ ."
(I know some Hillary fans, full T-Shirt-wearing, bumper sticker types, that are still angry at that 7,804,213. It should go to show how close the election was just looking at the relative sizes)
|
On August 07 2020 02:03 JimmiC wrote:Yikes I just looked it up he is 73. Around here there is this strange thing with the older you are the less likely you are to wear masks or distance. Makes no sense. In great news the NYSA is going after the NRA for all it's corruption. I hate this group, I never liked them but the more I read about them the worst they are. They pretend they are for gun freedom, but when you look at their position on 3d printed guns it is to see they are only about the $$$ and actually don't care about shit. Well they care about themselves and making money and abusing their members. On top of that guns are such a huge problem in American society today that getting rid of a thoughtless organization can only be good. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/ny-attorney-general-seeks-to-dissolve-nra/ar-BB17EqoX?li=AAggNb9
Despite my disagreements with him across the board, DeWine is an interesting guy and a prolific politician. Word is that he’s asymptomatic, so he should be ok.
Also as a guy who shoots as a hobby, I cannot wait for the NRA to go the way of the dodo.
|
|
|
Is there any precedent for dissolving organizations accused of this kind of thing, or is this more democratic overreach that will result in a PR disaster?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53684033
New York's attorney general has announced a lawsuit aimed at dissolving the powerful National Rifle Association over alleged financial mismanagement.
Letitia James said the NRA had diverted millions of dollars to leaders including its chief executive, Wayne LaPierre, for their personal use.
"For these years of misconduct we are seeking an order to dissolve the NRA in its entirety," she said.
The NRA described the lawsuit as a "baseless, premeditated attack".
|
Yes, the Trump organization had it happen to them.
|
|
|
On August 07 2020 04:36 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2020 04:05 Jockmcplop wrote:Is there any precedent for dissolving organizations accused of this kind of thing, or is this more democratic overreach that will result in a PR disaster? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53684033New York's attorney general has announced a lawsuit aimed at dissolving the powerful National Rifle Association over alleged financial mismanagement.
Letitia James said the NRA had diverted millions of dollars to leaders including its chief executive, Wayne LaPierre, for their personal use.
"For these years of misconduct we are seeking an order to dissolve the NRA in its entirety," she said.
The NRA described the lawsuit as a "baseless, premeditated attack". Kind of funny that they say premeditated, so dumb. Like of course they did it on purpose and put thought into it. How could they not think and plan on it and of course they should. Calling it baseless and an attack makes sense from their point of view but throwing in the word premeditated makes them look like morons.
What makes me laugh is that NRA members won't care about the misuse of their funds as much as they will care about the democrats attacking the fraudsters.
|
|
|
Speaking of guns, gun sales are up in record numbers. July sales have almost eclipsed the entire gun sales for 2019: 1.8 million.
There’s nothing like nationwide protests and a murder surge in major cities to cause a spurt of new gun sales. Gun controllers may want to rethink their 2020 strategy.
The FBI’s most recent gun-sale figures are stunning. They show that in July the bureau carried out 3.6 million background checks, the third highest month on record. Adjusting to reflect checks only for gun purchases, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) says this translates to 1.8 million gun sales for July 2020—a 122% increase over July 2019. The 12,141,032 gun sales through this July is just shy of the 13,199,172 sales for all of 2019.
These record sales are best understood as a referendum on the riots, and the growing lack of confidence many Americans have that police will protect them. This is more than National Rifle Association spin.
Plenty of Democrats own guns, many of them the blue-collar Democrats who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and whom Joe Biden hopes to woo back. Forty percent of first-time buyers are women. An NSSF survey of gun retailers reports that sales to black Americans are up 58.2% for the first six months of this year, the largest increase for any demographic group.
One question is whether this new interest in guns will change the issue of gun violence in this election year. A year ago gun controllers were on the march, as Democrats used the issue to gain control of the Virginia Legislature, which proceeded to limit handgun purchases. Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety, which helped those Virginia Democrats, is trying to pull off similar victories this year with a $60 million campaign.
The policy contrast between the presidential candidates is stark. Mr. Trump talks up the Second Amendment at every rally. Mr. Biden this year called gun manufacturers “the enemy.” In March he told a Democratic auto worker who accused him of trying to “take away our guns” that he was “full of s—.” He’d ban sales of so-called assault weapons and fine existing owners who don’t register them.
WSJ
It's possibly not a big campaign issue this season. The Trump campaign is probably too chaotic to actually make this an issue.
|
"Americans buy more guns because XYZ scares them".
Oldest story in the world, the Onion said everything there was to say about it. I'm just waiting to see you all burn in your self made dystopia.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Northern Ireland26094 Posts
On August 07 2020 06:21 Velr wrote:
"Americans buy more guns because XYZ scares them".
Oldest story in the world, the Onion said everything there was to say about it. I'm just waiting to see you all burn in your self made dystopia.
Maybe masks shaped like guns is the marketing ploy needed to encourage mass adoption?
|
|
|
I reckon if they started pushing that skull bandana thing from modern warfare 2, people would be all over it.
Activision, this is your moment.
|
Wasn't there a story about some police force adapting the punisher logo in the US?
Which is like.. just so fucked up, you don't even see how ironic it is anymore?
|
On August 07 2020 06:59 Velr wrote:
Wasn't there a story about some police force adapting the punisher logo in the US?
Which is like.. just so fucked up, you don't even see how ironic it is anymore?
Nope. Just people seeing edginess and completely overlooking the nuance behind it. Then, some time down the line when the nuance is shown to them, they'll complain about PC SJW culture being pushed like it's something new.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
