EPTOn August 13 2024 02:01 NewSunshine wrote:
I was convinced he was talking about Stretch Armstrong.
I was convinced he was talking about Stretch Armstrong.
No, it was Louis Armstrong, he played trumpet on the moon!
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4343
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
Acrofales
Spain17989 Posts
No, it was Louis Armstrong, he played trumpet on the moon! | ||
|
mcxds
Germany19 Posts
On August 13 2024 01:39 Gorsameth wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/08/09/trump-media-loss-quarter/ Its an absolute colossal failure and a money pit. All Trump hopes for is that it lasts just long enough for him to be allowed to sell his shares and leave someone else with the odorous pile of excrement. Yes, the article in the NYM states that Trump media "announced quarterly revenue of $770,500 and losses of $328 million" in May 2024. But it also states that "the stock, DJT, has a market capitalization of roughly $6 billion". So, of course, one possibility is that "Trump will begin to liquidate his position as soon as he is able, leaving his supporters holding increasingly worthless shares. But his ongoing strength in the polls and the stock’s corresponding persistence now point to another possibility: that he will return to office and retain his multibillion-dollar stake." The author describes the possibilites of this alternative as follows: Trump Media could win lucrative government contracts. Anyone looking to curry favor with Trump could buy advertising on Truth Social at inflated prices, effectively filtering cash to the company’s largest shareholder. Billionaires could buy up shares of DJT, boosting Trump’s net worth, at the same time they have business before the government — a merger they want to survive antitrust scrutiny, say, or a matter before the Federal Communications Commission. People seeking influence or favors — anyone from a rich guy who wants to be an ambassador to a criminal looking for a pardon — could buy stock to demonstrate their fealty. And in the realm of the stupid but plausible, what if the shitlords of r/wallstreetbets offer Trump a quid pro quo — they’ll pump his stock if he renames an aircraft carrier the USS Stonks? The possibilities are as unbounded as Trump’s capacity for self-interest. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44322 Posts
On August 13 2024 00:57 MJG wrote: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2lmm2wwlyo Claiming that a crowd is faked when it's easily verifiable as real is a pretty weird thing to do... It'd be nice if lies like these broke some supporters out of their spells. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17989 Posts
On August 13 2024 02:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It'd be nice if lies like these broke some supporters out of their spells. How would it do that? All you did was provide further evidence that Big Media, including the British public broadcasting, is in on the conspiracy to continuously discredit The Donald. Something MAGAts already firmly believe. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25302 Posts
On August 13 2024 01:04 riotjune wrote: Good post, and a reminder that even on the household level, people rarely agree and argue about the dumbest things. How many times can you count kids arguing with their parents (or young men secretly wanting to kill their dads)? If you thought people living in the same house can't even agree on just a few issues, wait until you take a look at all the people living in the same country and examine many more issues on the national level. Those disagreements are going to multiply manyfold in a working democracy. Which is why it's always funny seeing North Korean ONE HUNDO percent bullshit numbers coming out of rigged elections, something Russia and China ccp is guilty of. Who do they think they're fooling? Kremlin may be a little more subtle about it and at least give the opposition/absentees 3%, sometimes even up to 9% (which is pretty generous for a dictatorship), but Putin getting +91% in rigged elections, referendums, or whatever the fuck, is still what I would consider to be "North Korean bullshit numbers." Get the fuck outta here with that shit. I’ve long thought as an outsider, why go with such ridiculous, unbelievable numbers, these folks know how preposterous they are, they’re many things but they’re not stupid. But, perhaps internally it serves a purpose. Prop up the dictatorship by making opposition feel hopeless. Make opposition feel they’re in a smaller group than they actually are. Or, alternatively, and more likely in a Russia where propaganda has its limits in the internet age, instil that feeling with a ‘Hey look we’re so powerful that we can completely bullshit up the results, say we got 80%+ of the vote and what are you gonna do about it?’ Thanks all for the Armstrong related banter all, little known fact is that Louis Armstrong actually wrote ‘What a Wonderful World’ after being inspired by the lush scenery he encountered on his moon visit. I’d totally forgot about that interesting factoid | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On August 13 2024 02:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It'd be nice if lies like these broke some supporters out of their spells. The only way it'll happen now is when Trump finally exits the public sphere. He's the oldest person to ever make the ballot for president, and we're already seeing general senility combine with the decades of cocaine and conspiracy that threaten to catch up with him. His followers will try to emulate him, but it has been a cult of personality with a spotlight at the top that Trump refuses to share. When Trump is gone, they will scramble all over again to figure out what the Republican party stands for, just like when Trump first emerged onto the scene. That tends to happen when you don't really stand for anything to begin with. | ||
|
Yurie
11833 Posts
On August 13 2024 03:01 NewSunshine wrote: The only way it'll happen now is when Trump finally exits the public sphere. He's the oldest person to ever make the ballot for president, and we're already seeing general senility combine with the decades of cocaine and conspiracy that threaten to catch up with him. His followers will try to emulate him, but it has been a cult of personality with a spotlight at the top that Trump refuses to share. When Trump is gone, they will scramble all over again to figure out what the Republican party stands for, just like when Trump first emerged onto the scene. That tends to happen when you don't really stand for anything to begin with. I thought it was clear. Whatever brings more pain to a non-white white male than it does a white male? Then quietly lowering taxes for the wealthy and introducing pro company, anti consumer and anti environment legislation if paid enough. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4768 Posts
On August 13 2024 02:01 NewSunshine wrote: I was convinced he was talking about Stretch Armstrong. Winning several Tours with one testicle left, hopped up on doping is still an impressive feat, lol. Can't believe I brainfarted that. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10499 Posts
On August 13 2024 01:03 NewSunshine wrote: I just think it's interesting, because the large number of people that collected to Milwaukee were mostly conservatives, and last I checked, they're still trying to outlaw being homosexual. It's interesting when you read between the lines. Last time you checked conservatives wanted to outlaw people being homosexual? When was the last time you checked, the 1950s? I used to wonder how people can be so badly misinformed but now I’m convinced buying into these kind of lies is necessary. Being convinced conservatives want to haul away gays to the gulags is necessary to justify wanting to do the same to conservatives. Being convinced the unvaccinated represent a grave danger to your health is necessary to justify wanting to banish them from society, etc. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On August 13 2024 03:33 BlackJack wrote: Last time you checked conservatives wanted to outlaw people being homosexual? When was the last time you checked, the 1950s? I used to wonder how people can be so badly misinformed but now I’m convinced buying into these kind of lies is necessary. Being convinced conservatives want to haul away gays to the gulags is necessary to justify wanting to do the same to conservatives. Being convinced the unvaccinated represent a grave danger to your health is necessary to justify wanting to banish them from society, etc. Okay, I don't recall peeing in your corn flakes this morning, but if someone did, I'm sorry. It ruins a perfectly good bowl of cereal. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2554 Posts
On August 13 2024 03:33 BlackJack wrote: Last time you checked conservatives wanted to outlaw people being homosexual? When was the last time you checked, the 1950s? I used to wonder how people can be so badly misinformed but now I’m convinced buying into these kind of lies is necessary. Being convinced conservatives want to haul away gays to the gulags is necessary to justify wanting to do the same to conservatives. Being convinced the unvaccinated represent a grave danger to your health is necessary to justify wanting to banish them from society, etc. Anecdotally and from a different country (with plenty of similarities) Conservative Christians still plenty hate gays and wish they could 'cure' them. Maybe the 'buying into these kinds of lies' comes from actually talking to their gay friends and how those same gay friends get pushed out of spaces such as churches, bars, and their own literal families because they're not accepted there for who they are. Last I checked its 2024 and I can still uh... see that happening, in real time. No news article needed to lie to me, I had people to tell the truth. I think oBlade's pushback against casual homophobia is 100% fair, for what it's worth. I think 'Conservatives don't ACTUALLY have anything against gays' is a real fucking strange line to take. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On August 13 2024 03:57 Fleetfeet wrote: Anecdotally and from a different country (with plenty of similarities) Conservative Christians still plenty hate gays and wish they could 'cure' them. Maybe the 'buying into these kinds of lies' comes from actually talking to their gay friends and how those same gay friends get pushed out of spaces such as churches, bars, and their own literal families because they're not accepted there for who they are. Last I checked its 2024 and I can still uh... see that happening, in real time. No news article needed to lie to me, I had people to tell the truth. I think oBlade's pushback against casual homophobia is 100% fair, for what it's worth. I think 'Conservatives don't ACTUALLY have anything against gays' is a real fucking strange line to take. Well, he said it already, just because he's arguing in defense of something, doesn't mean he's interested in defending that thing. He will pretend Florida doesn't exist just so he can pick a fight, only to back off in about 2 pages and claim he's not aligned with Florida Republicans, it just makes him really angry that anyone might cite an incorrect fact on the internet because they want to acknowledge Florida as part of the United States. After all, it's hard to be aligned with Florida Republicans if Florida doesn't exist. So really, it's our fault for thinking he's trying to defend Florida Republicans, because as much as it looks like he's defending Florida Republicans by denying the impact of their legislation and minimizing the impact on the Florida LGBTQ community, he's really not going to bat for Florida Republicans, because fundamentally he disagrees with them. We just won't get that information for another couple days. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44322 Posts
On August 13 2024 03:33 BlackJack wrote: Last time you checked conservatives wanted to outlaw people being homosexual? When was the last time you checked, the 1950s? I used to wonder how people can be so badly misinformed but now I’m convinced buying into these kind of lies is necessary. Being convinced conservatives want to haul away gays to the gulags is necessary to justify wanting to do the same to conservatives. Being convinced the unvaccinated represent a grave danger to your health is necessary to justify wanting to banish them from society, etc. While full-on "outlawing" homosexuality is an exaggeration, so is saying that we'd need to travel all the way back to the 1950s to find that mindset. On August 13 2024 02:33 Acrofales wrote: How would it do that? All you did was provide further evidence that Big Media, including the British public broadcasting, is in on the conspiracy to continuously discredit The Donald. Something MAGAts already firmly believe. On August 13 2024 03:01 NewSunshine wrote: The only way it'll happen now is when Trump finally exits the public sphere. He's the oldest person to ever make the ballot for president, and we're already seeing general senility combine with the decades of cocaine and conspiracy that threaten to catch up with him. His followers will try to emulate him, but it has been a cult of personality with a spotlight at the top that Trump refuses to share. When Trump is gone, they will scramble all over again to figure out what the Republican party stands for, just like when Trump first emerged onto the scene. That tends to happen when you don't really stand for anything to begin with. I know  I have zero confidence that the remaining Trump supporters would leave for any reason. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44322 Posts
On August 13 2024 04:12 NewSunshine wrote: We had a Vice President in 2020 who believed in conversion therapy. We have states where anti-gay propaganda is being promulgated to public school students, and where teachers are liable to lose their jobs if any discussion of queer gender identity happens on their watch. We will not be gaslit into thinking the Republican party has no beef whatsoever with LGBTQ people. I think those are very fair points. The only reason why Mike Pence still isn't around, trying to outlaw gay lifestyles as a vice presidential runningmate, is because he doesn't want to get hung by his backstabbing boss's groupies. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23228 Posts
On August 13 2024 04:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: + Show Spoiler + On August 13 2024 03:33 BlackJack wrote: Last time you checked conservatives wanted to outlaw people being homosexual? When was the last time you checked, the 1950s? I used to wonder how people can be so badly misinformed but now I’m convinced buying into these kind of lies is necessary. Being convinced conservatives want to haul away gays to the gulags is necessary to justify wanting to do the same to conservatives. Being convinced the unvaccinated represent a grave danger to your health is necessary to justify wanting to banish them from society, etc. While full-on "outlawing" homosexuality is an exaggeration, so is saying that we'd need to travel all the way back to the 1950s to find that mindset. I know I have zero confidence that the remaining Trump supporters would leave for any reason. Not really any indication that they'd change trajectory without Trump or that Democrats won't keep following them to the right with stuff like the immigration crackdown, cop cities, and supporting genocide to "win over" Republican voters. No indication that Democrat voters would ever leave for any reason either. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10499 Posts
On August 13 2024 04:04 NewSunshine wrote: Well, he said it already, just because he's arguing in defense of something, doesn't mean he's interested in defending that thing. He will pretend Florida doesn't exist just so he can pick a fight, only to back off in about 2 pages and claim he's not aligned with Florida Republicans, it just makes him really angry that anyone might cite an incorrect fact on the internet because they want to acknowledge Florida as part of the United States. After all, it's hard to be aligned with Florida Republicans if Florida doesn't exist. So really, it's our fault for thinking he's trying to defend Florida Republicans, because as much as it looks like he's defending Florida Republicans by denying the impact of their legislation and minimizing the impact on the Florida LGBTQ community, he's really not going to bat for Florida Republicans, because fundamentally he disagrees with them. We just won't get that information for another couple days. “Conservatives want to outlaw homosexuality” “Eh, no they don’t” “Oh yeah well explain this Florida law that has nothing to do with outlawing homosexuality” “Trump claims that there are weight concerns for EVs is delusional” “Eh, no it’s not” “Oh yeah well do you think EVs are bad then? Why are you going to bat for Trump?” “If everyone got the covid vaccine the pandemic will be over” “Eh, it won’t” “Oh yeah well why are you doubting the greatness of the COVID vaccine, are you an anti-vaxxer” It’s really the same song and dance since I’ve been active on this forum again. Somehow the illogical leap that’s made to the 3rd line is always my fault. It’s not the ridiculous claim the first line or the massive goal post shift that happens in the 3rd. No… the problem is me not letting people get away with any ridiculous claim they want. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On August 13 2024 05:13 BlackJack wrote: “Conservatives want to outlaw homosexuality” “Eh, no they don’t” “Oh yeah well explain this Florida law that has nothing to do with outlawing homosexuality” “Trump claims that there are weight concerns for EVs is delusional” “Eh, no it’s not” “Oh yeah well do you think EVs are bad then? Why are you going to bat for Trump?” “If everyone got the covid vaccine the pandemic will be over” “Eh, it won’t” “Oh yeah well why are you doubting the greatness of the COVID vaccine, are you an anti-vaxxer” It’s really the same song and dance since I’ve been active on this forum again. Somehow the illogical leap that’s made to the 3rd line is always my fault. It’s not the ridiculous claim the first line or the massive goal post shift that happens in the 3rd. No… the problem is me not letting people get away with any ridiculous claim they want. My "problem" (this doesn't bother me enough for that, problem is a strong word, but it's the best I've got) is that your responses don't have anything to do with what I'm saying. I'm referencing the Don't Say Gay regime and you're countering by laying every argument you've had in this thread at my feet. If it feels like I'm not giving you an argument with proper academic rigor, I'm not, and it's because I already see from you that I'm not going to get much back if I do. You started the conversation, I expect you to take it somewhere, instead for some reason you keep bringing up COVID. I never mentioned it. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28665 Posts
I dont really mind being hyperbolic tbh, but if confronted it is probably easier to just go 'ì was being hyperbolic' than defend the statement. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On August 13 2024 06:05 Liquid`Drone wrote: BJ is arguing against the statement that conservatives want to outlaw homosexuality. Pointing to instances of conservatives being opposed to various elements of lgbt without pointing to instances of conservatives trying to outlaw homosexuality does nothing to back up that statement. Being fond of conversion therapy or opposing mentioning anything about homosexuality in schools are positions i in no way align with, but they aren't tantamount to wanting to outlaw homosexuality. And while im sure there are plenty fringe conservatives who would favor it (or worse), for something to be a position of 'conservatives' imo you at least need some examples of a political push for that. 'Conservatives want to outlaw abortion', for example, is fine. I dont really mind being hyperbolic tbh, but if confronted it is probably easier to just go 'ì was being hyperbolic' than defend the statement. I think it's a little weirder to confront someone for making a somewhat hyperbolic statement, that isn't even the main point of what I was saying. Also to argue like there's also no basis to my point, it's a level of tedium I don't have time for. I made a hyperbolic statement. I extrapolated from some very real efforts by conservatives to punish people for acknowledging the existence of LGBTQ people. My original point, that conservatives, who are notably opposed to LGBTQ people existing, are the ones who drove up usage of the gay dating app Grindr in coincidence with the RNC, is unchanged. What BJ is trying to argue about is not the main point of what I said. | ||
| ||
