EPTYou could simply solve this by typing: this was one of the reasons why... "That's" sounds like a conclusion based on your prior text.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5157
| 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 | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4957 Posts
You could simply solve this by typing: this was one of the reasons why... "That's" sounds like a conclusion based on your prior text. | ||
KwarK
United States43232 Posts
On August 11 2025 20:40 Magic Powers wrote: Did you hear me say that the US was ONLY considered a beacon of freedom because of abortion rights? No? Then stop being so intentionally inflammatory. Start arguing in good faith. You wanna be perceived as a rational person? Then act like it and stop attacking completely normal statements all the time. If you state exactly one factor and follow it with "that's why" then it's reasonable to conclude that what you're arguing is that the factor is why. In fact I'll go further and say that's literally the only reasonable interpretation of your post. "That is" is a clause that refers to something in the singular, your use of words specifies that the question of "why" is answered by a singular cause. Also that factor is simply not why. Nobody was looking at Stalin's gulags vs the American constitutional protections and concluding that America was a bastion of freedom because of abortion. Even if we accept that what you meant isn't what you said but rather some different thing that you meant to say, it's not right. | ||
|
Legan
Finland493 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21953 Posts
On August 11 2025 21:53 Legan wrote: ?Apparently, Schumer has made up an imaginary couple called Baileys that he uses as a reference point for voters. This has been going on for decades. Funnily, they keep voting for Republicans and have quite conservative views. It's just really weird that Schumer seems to use these imaginary people as an example of moderate Americans. Shouldn't he have actual voters to talk to? Also, if Schumer can't even convince these imaginary people, how is he going to convince the real and much more openly conservative voters? Really tells a lot about the current mindset if Schumer and Democrats still think that Baileys represent the voters that they should reach for. Using imaginary people to represent population groups in demograph research is pretty normal, this isn't weird. your own political party probably uses a similar imaginary couple as a representation for their target voters. And the average American is quite conservative and with control of the House, Senate and Presidency they are probably Republican... | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9137 Posts
On August 11 2025 22:14 Gorsameth wrote: ? Using imaginary people to represent population groups in demograph research is pretty normal, this isn't weird. your own political party probably uses a similar imaginary couple as a representation for their target voters. And the average American is quite conservative and with control of the House, Senate and Presidency they are probably Republican... It's perfectly normal in marketing to have personas for demographics but this isn't data based, he's improvising what this imaginary couple would think and do. This is from 2007 but a fun read: Schumer says that he is accompanied everywhere he goes by two imaginary middle-class friends, who advise him on all manner of middle-class concerns. Their names, until recently, were Joe and Eileen O’Reilly. “For the book’s sake, we wanted them to be more national,” Schumer said, “so they became the Baileys.” The Baileys live in Massapequa, in Nassau County, a town that is invariably known on Long Island as “Matzoh-Pizza.” The Baileys are both forty-five years old: Joe works for an insurance company, Eileen is a part-time employee at a doctor’s office. They worry about terrorism, and about values, and they are patriots—“Joe takes off his cap and sings along with the national anthem before the occasional Islanders game,” Schumer wrote. He elaborated, “They’re not ideologues. They’re worried about property taxes. It’s the tax they hate. And that’s what Democrats don’t get.” He has also drafted the Baileys in defending the C.I.A.’s human-intelligence program: “Had Joe and Eileen been in the room after the hum-int screwup, they would not have indulged in the blame game, gutted the human-intelligence program, or weakened America.” The Baileys, Schumer said, sometimes dine out—not often, because of the cost—and they like Chinese. Which raised the question: What would the Baileys eat, if they were here at Hunan Dynasty? “The more conventional stuff,” Schumer said, “but they’re with it.” They’re with it? “I mean, they’re not not with it.” Schumer looked at a plate of steamed chicken and vegetables, and said, “They wouldn’t order that. They would order kung pao chicken.” It was suggested to Schumer that he is a little bit weird. He acknowledged this to be true. “They’re real for me,” he said. “I love the Baileys.” [..] It turns out, Schumer said, as he ate an almond cookie, that there are some actual Baileys in Massapequa, and he once met a couple of them. Mrs. Bailey was a kind woman, “very nice, a nice lady,” but the actual Mr. Bailey was a Republican. Even worse, Schumer said, he had a goatee. “Joe Bailey would never have a goatee.” https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/19/imaginary-friends | ||
|
Legan
Finland493 Posts
On August 11 2025 22:14 Gorsameth wrote: ? Using imaginary people to represent population groups in demograph research is pretty normal, this isn't weird. your own political party probably uses a similar imaginary couple as a representation for their target voters. And the average American is quite conservative and with control of the House, Senate and Presidency they are probably Republican... The weird part is really that Schumer presents them as if he has talked to these imaginary persons and gives weird details about them. Having models for different types of voters is normal, but calling them by names is weird. Talking about moderate middle-class voters as a group makes sense, but talking about a group as my old neighbour Bob is weird. He is washing his analysis as anecdotes. Imagine Elon Musk talking frequently about some homeless friend of his and their views without there being an actual person behind the stories. | ||
|
Gescom
Canada3484 Posts
| ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1879 Posts
This is after Trump and Attorney General Bondi have been saying there is no list, which was before they said there is a list but Trump is on it because Comey and Biden fabricated it. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43232 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On August 11 2025 20:47 Uldridge wrote: MP, the way you use words are sometimes difficult to assess in the sense that we have no way of knowing if you mean that: because of this (abortion law broken not penalize), the US was considered a beacon of freedom, or if we're supposed to know that you mean an entire slew of reasons, but these were implied and I only gave the one example to show this. You could simply solve this by typing: this was one of the reasons why... "That's" sounds like a conclusion based on your prior text. If something is unclear about my words, people are free to just ask me to clarify. I frequently ask people to clarify so that I don't misrepresent their words. I don't understand what's so difficult. Just argue in good faith, and if you do that then you'll find yourself asking questions more than making accusations. It's really simple. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On August 11 2025 21:08 KwarK wrote: If you state exactly one factor and follow it with "that's why" then it's reasonable to conclude that what you're arguing is that the factor is why. In fact I'll go further and say that's literally the only reasonable interpretation of your post. "That is" is a clause that refers to something in the singular, your use of words specifies that the question of "why" is answered by a singular cause. Also that factor is simply not why. Nobody was looking at Stalin's gulags vs the American constitutional protections and concluding that America was a bastion of freedom because of abortion. Even if we accept that what you meant isn't what you said but rather some different thing that you meant to say, it's not right. KwarK, you always misrepresent what I say. 10 out of 10 times literally. And the worst thing is: you do it even when you should by all means support my position. Because you have a hate boner for me. Just stop doing this and instead try arguing in good faith. It'll immediately remedy this problem that you have of constantly misinterpreting what I say. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43232 Posts
On August 11 2025 23:21 Magic Powers wrote: KwarK, you always misrepresent what I say. 10 out of 10 times literally. And the worst thing is: you do it even when you should by all means support my position. Because you have a hate boner for me. Just stop doing this and instead try arguing in good faith. It'll immediately remedy this problem that you have of constantly misinterpreting what I say. Your words were clear, you’re just backtracking because your words were wrong. Also I don’t support your position that RFK is far right because of his stance on abortion. I think it’s dumb. It’s the worst possible way to argue that conclusion. The guy literally called for his supporters to vote for Trump so that Trump could enact his far right agenda but you ignore all that with this absurd tangent about abortion. And to compound that, you’re not even right. Any time you post in support of a conclusion I might agree with you’re undermining the cause with your terrible arguments. And then you just keep going, changing the topic from whether Trump’s cabinet is full of lunatic quacks like RFK to whether aborting a fetus changes from intrinsically right wing to intrinsically left wing somewhere around month 4. You’re a walking gift to conservatives. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On August 11 2025 23:30 KwarK wrote: Your words were clear, you’re just backtracking because your words were wrong. Also I don’t support your position that RFK is far right because of his stance on abortion. I think it’s dumb. It’s the worst possible way to argue that conclusion. The guy literally called for his supporters to vote for Trump so that Trump could enact his far right agenda but you ignore all that with this absurd tangent about abortion. And to compound that, you’re not even right. Any time you post in support of a conclusion I might agree with you’re undermining the cause with your terrible arguments. And then you just keep going, changing the topic from whether Trump’s cabinet is full of lunatic quacks like RFK to whether aborting a fetus changes from intrinsically right wing to intrinsically left wing somewhere around month 4. You’re a walking gift to conservatives. I'm telling you that I meant something else that doesn't fit your interpretation. You refuse to accept that your interpretation is not what I meant because you have a hate boner for me. It doesn't matter to you what I actually want to say, whether or not I would or wouldn't correct anything that I said. You just want to show me up literally all the time, because you have a hate boner for me. You don't care what I am saying or what I mean to say. Prove me wrong by accepting that I meant to say something that doesn't match your interpretation. If you don't accept that, then it means you just love to get hung up on words and you don't care at all about having honest discussions. You just want to argue in bad faith. Prove me wrong. The "walking gift" by the way is you. You are the one driving away honest, well informed left-wingers who fight against the fascism in America and other countries. You do that. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4957 Posts
| ||
|
Legan
Finland493 Posts
On August 11 2025 22:55 Gescom wrote: I think it's a decent tool for himself to keep him grounded and remember who he actually represents. Yes... it's a little quirky. What's your point exactly, Legan? The point is what kind of voter Schumer is imagining and trying to reach in his mind. His imagined voter is a person whom Democrats can't really reach as they do not actually support the polices that Democrats are perceived to represent. He is actually imagining a Republican voter. For example, Schumer has said that Baileys voted for Trump in 2024 because of crime, while stats are generally getting better. He is not talking about Baileys as being delusional or misinformed. He is talking as if Democrats need to be perceived as harder on crime. If we look at the current government for what is considered hard on crime, we can see a lot of authoritarian bullshit. People who knowingly voted for this are not going to be satisfied with simply better statistics and tougher laws. Schumer's imaginary friends are far more conservative than he dares to admit, and will keep voting for Republicans regardless of what policies Democrats pass. As long as he and other Democrats imagine these voters as their target audience, they are focusing on the wrong group of voters. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1879 Posts
On August 11 2025 23:47 Legan wrote: For example, Schumer has said that Baileys voted for Trump in 2024 because of crime, while stats are generally getting better. He is not talking about Baileys as being delusional or misinformed. He is talking as if Democrats need to be perceived as harder on crime. These can both be true. Right-wing media falsely telling people about a nonexistent crime wave is the reason many people voted Trump. I genuinely don't know the solution this problem. As long as billionaires own all the social media, all the cable news, and a great deal of newspapers and radio stations, and as long as the right-wing promises tax cuts to those same billionaires, they will always give right-slanted news. Sometimes the fuck-ups of Republicans is too significant for even right-slanted news to cover up (e.g. Trump's gross mismanagement of the pandemic), but what else can Democrats do to capitalize on the reality of their policies working when the media won't honestly report it? | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1879 Posts
| ||
|
Sadist
United States7291 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21953 Posts
On August 12 2025 01:12 Sadist wrote: shipped to blue cities to cause problems there, or just send to jail to be made a profit from would be my guess.Where are the homeless people going to go when he "gets them off the street" what does that actually mean? | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1879 Posts
On August 12 2025 01:12 Sadist wrote: Where are the homeless people going to go when he "gets them off the street" what does that actually mean? With this one sentence you've probably thought more about it than Trump has. | ||
| ||
