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.
On July 07 2025 08:27 Introvert wrote: Criticism of Obama was always linked back to his race by his defenders. The blatant bias and favoritism fueled right-wing distain for the "normal" processes and politicians. That's where Trump came from. At the very least if somehow you disagree with that, I'm telling you that's how it was perceived. And it's hard to deny that even so called "reputable" media had their whole hand on the scale.
The same media that made scandals out of Obama wearing a tan suit or putting Dijon mustard on his burger or not wearing a flag pin, lol. Fox News literally spent more time on those than Trump being a convicted rapist.
On July 07 2025 08:27 Introvert wrote: Criticism of Obama was always linked back to his race by his defenders. The blatant bias and favoritism fueled right-wing distain for the "normal" processes and politicians. That's where Trump came from. At the very least if somehow you disagree with that, I'm telling you that's how it was perceived. And it's hard to deny that even so called "reputable" media had their whole hand on the scale.
The same media that made scandals out of Obama wearing a tan suit or putting Dijon mustard on his burger or not wearing a flag pin, lol. Fox News literally spent more time on those than Trump being a convicted rapist.
And Romney was mocked for saying "he had binders full of women" when it was obvious what he meant. You can go ahead and pretend that the 2012 election was an even handed affair. It wasn't. Remember senate majority leader Harry Reid went to the senate floor, then lied about Romney not paying his taxes. When asked later if regretted it, he answered "he didn't win, did he?" Or the Super Pac ad that had Paul Ryan throwing a woman in a wheelchair off a cliff.
I'm not going to relitigate all of 2012 but the idea that everything was either even handed or that Romney wasn't treated like garbage is either A) retcon B) ignorance from people too young to remember, or C) people who were all for it now pretending they were totally justified.
Paul Ryan's proposed Affordable Care Act rollback would've killed a lot of people. That ad was a lot closer to politically neutral than the outright lie about death panels that Pelosi supposedly put in the ACA.
The fact that the "binders full of women" gaffe got more coverage than that shows exactly what I'm talking about.
On July 07 2025 03:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Breaking news: Marjorie Taylor Greene is an absolute moron.
"Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said Saturday she plans to introduce a bill aimed at tackling “weather modification.” “I am introducing a bill that prohibits the injection, release, or dispersion of chemicals or substances into the atmosphere for the express purpose of altering weather, temperature, climate, or sunlight intensity. It will be a felony offense,” she wrote in a Saturday post on X." https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5386499-greene-to-introduce-weather-modification-bill/
Yes, she's a moron. Still, this one is likely about something more practical and not on the level of Jewish space lasers.
Cloud Seeding is a real thing. Delivering chemicals into the atmosphere to attempt to make it rain. Its actual effectiveness is in dispute, but it is absolutely something that is being tried. A bill like this one, without reading the specifics, could prevent such attempts to control the weather by adding more pollutants to the atmosphere. It's not necessarily a bad thing, although I never trust MTG to be on the right side of anything and her reasons may have more to do with conspiracy theories about weather control rather than actual concerns about polluting the environment in an attempt to control it.
It also is probably aimed at other dumb conspiracy shit like chem trails, knowing her.
Look, Obama presided over death panels and wasn’t even American, that’s fair game like.
Mitt Romney was treated so unfairly that it subsequently justifies giving Trump a pass when he transgresses one’s own ostensible principles at seemingly all times.
I mean in fairness it is a broad church that constitutes Trump’s support, but like an actual church it’s not exactly consistent and whatever the church decides one will roll with it
Conservatives will sneer about the left’s ’purity tests’ which is all well and good, and indeed often valid, but if you’ve basically got either zero principles, or zero balls to stand up for your own ostensible principles cos strongman leader owns the libs like why should I take your positions seriously and in good faith?
On July 07 2025 07:25 WombaT wrote: Was Romney treated any worse than Obama by his political opponents?
Of course not. Romney certainly didn't get a free pass for things - he was called out for what he said and did, and was occasionally taken out of context, like every other political figure in history - but the Republicans literally invented fake scandals to attack Obama ("Dijon mustard" this, "tan suit" that, the absolutely atrocious racist birther conspiracy that brought Trump into the limelight, etc.).
Of course Democrats criticized Romney, but it was nothing compared to the vitriol from Republicans (especially Fox News and conservative leaders) against Obama: the communist, socialist, Muslim-but-also-atheist, born-in-Kenya, anti-Christ, secretly named Barry HUSSEIN Soetoro with the forged short-form / long-form / who-gives-a-shit-he's-half-BLACK birth certificate. Oh yeah, and Michelle is secretly a man and an "ape in heels", along with every other "monkey" joke in the book.
The unhinged meltdowns were absolutely unparalleled, and Introvert is just trying to whitewash history if he thinks that Romney was attacked as much/hard/inappropriately as Obama. Oh boohoo, Romney was mocked for saying something that he actually said? The absolute horror! And keep in mind that when Introvert says that Trump's rise to fame was due to "GOP voters wanted someone who would hit back as hard he could", what he really means is that GOP voters wanted a political leader as unabashedly vile and racist and hateful as their deepest, darkest thoughts. And that's exactly what they got.
On July 07 2025 09:12 WombaT wrote: Look, Obama presided over death panels and wasn’t even American, that’s fair game like.
Mitt Romney was treated so unfairly that it subsequently justifies giving Trump a pass when he transgresses one’s own ostensible principles at seemingly all times.
I mean in fairness it is a broad church that constitutes Trump’s support, but like an actual church it’s not exactly consistent and whatever the church decides one will roll with it
Conservatives will sneer about the left’s ’purity tests’ which is all well and good, and indeed often valid, but if you’ve basically got either zero principles, or zero balls to stand up for your own ostensible principles cos strongman leader owns the libs like why should I take your positions seriously and in good faith?
Well first you appear to have missed the short list I gave on the last page of why conservatives could be overall happy. Secondly, and I think we've discussed this before, wanting a conservative in a place like to have a quota of set denunciations is more of an emotional response than anything. Among the people that I know who are big Trumpers they find me frustrating when I'm critical of him from the right. But guess what? The other conservatives here were banned a long time ago. You ask for something you yourself are not willing to provide, whether it be the Mamdani thing from yesterday or your continual reticence at condemning those who celebrate violence. It's easy to just declare that someone hasn't been critical enough (even though we shouldn't expect them to be as critical as I might desire) --> not acting "in good faith" --> therefore I don't have to engage with what you say, only get prissy about what you don't say. People here defended Obama to the hilt. They, like good left-wing anti Trump soldiers, pretended that Biden was fully in charge of his wits when he wasn't. Spare me this questioning of someone else's motivation when we watch rationalization happen everywhere in real time. The left's obsession with purity tests does not mean they don't do exactly what you are describing.
I don't know why Trump cares to bury what everyone already knows; his supporters don't care that he's a rapist and sexualizes underage girls and cheats on his wives. Him being on his buddy's client list wouldn't make a difference.
The cognitive dissonance of continuous grievance Introvert seems to be basing his whole political identity seems so exhausting to me, how much energy does it take to be this dishonest and internally inconsistent?
I mean here he goes listing imaginary Romney slights and how that radicalized him enough to support someone who basically spits in the face of his "conservative principles" every day.
The guy, after his first term where he blew a huge hole in the budget just blew another, even bigger one, to the tune of 3,5 Trillion and all this sad soul has to say is how mean everyone was to him, to Romney and to Trump.
0 principles, 0 consistency, just grievance and outrage, he came here to pretend to be outraged about a college form check box but had absolutely nothing to say about a bill that created incredible amounts of spending with absolutely no way for paying for it, so much for his care about spending, he cut off weapons deliveries to Ukraine, another thing that Introvert finds problematic, no word from him, but a brown guy putting the wrong thing in a form, oh boy, here he comes, captain consistency and conservative values.
On July 07 2025 09:12 WombaT wrote: Look, Obama presided over death panels and wasn’t even American, that’s fair game like.
Mitt Romney was treated so unfairly that it subsequently justifies giving Trump a pass when he transgresses one’s own ostensible principles at seemingly all times.
I mean in fairness it is a broad church that constitutes Trump’s support, but like an actual church it’s not exactly consistent and whatever the church decides one will roll with it
Conservatives will sneer about the left’s ’purity tests’ which is all well and good, and indeed often valid, but if you’ve basically got either zero principles, or zero balls to stand up for your own ostensible principles cos strongman leader owns the libs like why should I take your positions seriously and in good faith?
Well first you appear to have missed the short list I gave on the last page of why conservatives could be overall happy. Secondly, and I think we've discussed this before, wanting a conservative in a place like to have a quota of set denunciations is more of an emotional response than anything. Among the people that I know who are big Trumpers they find me frustrating when I'm critical of him from the right. But guess what? The other conservatives here were banned a long time ago. You ask for something you yourself are not willing to provide, whether it be the Mamdani thing from yesterday or your continual reticence at condemning those who celebrate violence. It's easy to just declare that someone hasn't been critical enough (even though we shouldn't expect them to be as critical as I might desire) --> not acting "in good faith" --> therefore I don't have to engage with what you say, only get prissy about what you don't say. People here defended Obama to the hilt. They, like good left-wing anti Trump soldiers, pretended that Biden was fully in charge of his wits when he wasn't. Spare me this questioning of someone else's motivation when we watch rationalization happen everywhere in real time. The left's obsession with purity tests does not mean they don't do exactly what you are describing.
Are you talking about Danglars here when you say all conservatives were banned? Because he wasn't really interested in having a conversation. If you're talking about the randos that occasionally show up, drop a couple "truth bombs" and leave, I'm going to go ahead and say that I won't miss their interactions.
Regarding the Biden thing, it was less defending that he was fully in charge of his wits and more that we'd vote a corpse over having Trump as president again based on what he was saying on the campaign trail. Which, considering how it's currently panning out, wasn't the wrong approach.
I will admit to being surprised about the support Luigi got in this thread, I was not expecting that.
I see Introvert is deflecting towards Obama now. But what he doesn't realize is that Trump has spread so many lies that he even outperformed, nay, absolutely obliterated Obama's record.
Introvert doesn't support Trump because something about Obama's presidency felt off to him. Nope. It's because he wants to stay in the fantasy realm that Trump created for him. Waking up and seeing the truth would break the illusion of his cult.
On July 07 2025 09:12 WombaT wrote: Look, Obama presided over death panels and wasn’t even American, that’s fair game like.
Mitt Romney was treated so unfairly that it subsequently justifies giving Trump a pass when he transgresses one’s own ostensible principles at seemingly all times.
I mean in fairness it is a broad church that constitutes Trump’s support, but like an actual church it’s not exactly consistent and whatever the church decides one will roll with it
Conservatives will sneer about the left’s ’purity tests’ which is all well and good, and indeed often valid, but if you’ve basically got either zero principles, or zero balls to stand up for your own ostensible principles cos strongman leader owns the libs like why should I take your positions seriously and in good faith?
Well first you appear to have missed the short list I gave on the last page of why conservatives could be overall happy. Secondly, and I think we've discussed this before, wanting a conservative in a place like to have a quota of set denunciations is more of an emotional response than anything. Among the people that I know who are big Trumpers they find me frustrating when I'm critical of him from the right. But guess what? The other conservatives here were banned a long time ago. You ask for something you yourself are not willing to provide, whether it be the Mamdani thing from yesterday or your continual reticence at condemning those who celebrate violence. It's easy to just declare that someone hasn't been critical enough (even though we shouldn't expect them to be as critical as I might desire) --> not acting "in good faith" --> therefore I don't have to engage with what you say, only get prissy about what you don't say. People here defended Obama to the hilt. They, like good left-wing anti Trump soldiers, pretended that Biden was fully in charge of his wits when he wasn't. Spare me this questioning of someone else's motivation when we watch rationalization happen everywhere in real time. The left's obsession with purity tests does not mean they don't do exactly what you are describing.
Are you talking about Danglars here when you say all conservatives were banned? Because he wasn't really interested in having a conversation. If you're talking about the randos that occasionally show up, drop a couple "truth bombs" and leave, I'm going to go ahead and say that I won't miss their interactions.
Regarding the Biden thing, it was less defending that he was fully in charge of his wits and more that we'd vote a corpse over having Trump as president again based on what he was saying on the campaign trail. Which, considering how it's currently panning out, wasn't the wrong approach.
I will admit to being surprised about the support Luigi got in this thread, I was not expecting that.
He could be referring to xDaunt too. Unsure without more context.
I don't know why Trump cares to bury what everyone already knows; his supporters don't care that he's a rapist and sexualizes underage girls and cheats on his wives. Him being on his buddy's client list wouldn't make a difference.
If Trump were raping children decades ago, it would have come out in the last 10 years.
I don't know why Trump cares to bury what everyone already knows; his supporters don't care that he's a rapist and sexualizes underage girls and cheats on his wives. Him being on his buddy's client list wouldn't make a difference.
If Trump were raping children decades ago, it would have come out in the last 10 years.
I think that's a non sequitur. I'm also not going to make the claim that Trump definitely raped children, but we also know that crimes and scandals - including Trump-related ones - often take plenty of years to be uncovered and publicly revealed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy_Daniels–Donald_Trump_scandal
I don't know why Trump cares to bury what everyone already knows; his supporters don't care that he's a rapist and sexualizes underage girls and cheats on his wives. Him being on his buddy's client list wouldn't make a difference.
If Trump were raping children decades ago, it would have come out in the last 10 years.
And many of them are on the younger side.
That's what Trump is comfortable with saying openly. What else did he say behind closed doors, I wonder. Hmmm.
Nah, nothing to see here. Just a convicted felon saying perfectly normal things.
I have absolutely no doubt that Trump raped girls that were trafficked to him by Epstein.
At this point there is just too much photographic evidence, tapes by Epstein calling him his best friend and coverup by his AG and FBI director (who are coming off as incredibly stupid, not just incompetent or clumsy, just plain dumb) for me to believe anything else.
I mean, the guy is obviously a pervert and a creep, he bragged about going into miss Teen USA changing room while these girls were changing, he bragged about grabbing women by the pussy, he publicly creeped over his own daughter, his raped his wife, there is 0 reason to give him any benefit of the doubt.
The only reason why this hasn't came out fully is the fucked up nature of American justice system, if his shit did, so would shit of other incredibly rich and influential people (Musk, Chomsky, Clinton, Dershowitz, Cuomo, John Kerry, Prince Andrew, Mick Jagger), and neither Bill Barr, Merick Garland or Pam Bondi can have that.
Bill Barr especially since his dad was the person who gave Epstein his first job, for which he was wholly unqualified for.
I don't know why Trump cares to bury what everyone already knows; his supporters don't care that he's a rapist and sexualizes underage girls and cheats on his wives. Him being on his buddy's client list wouldn't make a difference.
If Trump were raping children decades ago, it would have come out in the last 10 years.
Ah, right, because of the "leftist media". They surely wouldn't have covered that up. The same media that spent more time talking about Obama being an elitist for putting Dijon mustard on his burger than Trump having been found by a court of law to have raped Jean Carroll. That media.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, though. Trans people! Immigrants! Drag queens! Those are the enemy!
I don't know why Trump cares to bury what everyone already knows; his supporters don't care that he's a rapist and sexualizes underage girls and cheats on his wives. Him being on his buddy's client list wouldn't make a difference.
If Trump were raping children decades ago, it would have come out in the last 10 years.
Ah, right, because of the "leftist media". They surely wouldn't have covered that up. The same media that spent more time talking about Obama being an elitist for putting Dijon mustard on his burger than Trump having been found by a court of law to have raped Jean Carroll. That media.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, though. Trans people! Immigrants! Drag queens! Those are the enemy!
No, you don't understand. Rape as defined by NY law is not what you think it is. You clearly haven't read your own sources. And you also don't actually understand English as well as you think you do. In fact you're really bad at English and you constantly use English words incorrectly. You should read your own source properly and also consider how your wrong use of English words leads to false accusations such as rape, when in fact no rape was committed according to your own sources. It was a forcible insertion of a thing, which could just be a fondling of the breasts if you really wanna be perfectly accurate. There wasn't any intercourse, ok? Easy to understand for someone who actually knows the English language properly or who reads their own sources. You should listen more to BJ and KwarK, they know correct words much better than you do and they actually read their own sources unlike you.
I could get addicted to seeing Trump supporters receive karmic justice. This guy ran a whole business with Mexicans and other minorities, then decided to help get Trump elected because his cult demanded it. Got his comeuppance real quick.
Strikes me as the kind of guy who'd own slaves if it were still legal.
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/60c3fe0f0b110dfff39e413a4a483041.png)
