|
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 |
I think part of what both Intro and Wombat are getting at is:
If I say there are too many calories in fast food and I prefer not to be obese. Who should I be mad at for still being fat?
|
On April 16 2026 01:22 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2026 00:59 dyhb wrote:On April 16 2026 00:19 dyhb wrote:On April 15 2026 23:41 LightSpectra wrote:On April 15 2026 07:18 dyhb wrote:On April 15 2026 04:38 oBlade wrote:
I think Swalwell's sudden heat is equally manufactured fake nonsense. I would too, if not for stopping his campaign for governor 2 days after news of the first four accusers broke, and announcing his plan to resign from his seat in congress one day after that. I didn't know what to make of the rumors before that. I commend your position upgrade from "no rape has ever occurred, ever" into "I'm cautiously willing to believe rape is possible if the culprit is a Democrat." Apparently in your world, stopping his campaign and resigning his seat isn't even a data point. Not one you mention at least. You can update me on whether you learned the difference between guilty and liable. It appears that in your confusion, you're just lashing out again. Or you would be quoting me saying what you claim, instead of asserting falsehoods. Bad habit. Sorry, LightSpectra, the last time we talked about the prior topic, you kept stating wrong things about the case and doubling down. So I'm linking the last time I gave you opportunity to correct them. I'm not proceeding with someone that takes soundbites and shows either ignorance or purposeful lying. Pay attention to why "Trump was not found guilty" is incorrect, and the question I tried three times to get a clear answer from you on. I guess four times now, but this is important to you given how much you bring it up. Sorry dyhb, but I'm happy to share this once again for your betterment: Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean CarrollYou can sealion all you like about this topic. I welcome it. It gives me more opportunities to share that link so passersby can learn the facts. Same shit as before. If you're going to say "adjudicated" you can't invent criminal civil statutes out of your hair, and neither can a judge. He was adjudicated not liable for rape, he was adjudicated liable for sexual abuse and the common way we refer to that sexual abuse is rape today. But you're blowing this job because you like to use "adjudicated," so I will continue to call you out on that.
On April 16 2026 00:59 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2026 00:19 dyhb wrote:On April 15 2026 23:41 LightSpectra wrote:On April 15 2026 07:18 dyhb wrote:On April 15 2026 04:38 oBlade wrote:
I think Swalwell's sudden heat is equally manufactured fake nonsense. I would too, if not for stopping his campaign for governor 2 days after news of the first four accusers broke, and announcing his plan to resign from his seat in congress one day after that. I didn't know what to make of the rumors before that. I commend your position upgrade from "no rape has ever occurred, ever" into "I'm cautiously willing to believe rape is possible if the culprit is a Democrat." Apparently in your world, stopping his campaign and resigning his seat isn't even a data point. Not one you mention at least. You can update me on whether you learned the difference between guilty and liable. It appears that in your confusion, you're just lashing out again. Or you would be quoting me saying what you claim, instead of asserting falsehoods. Bad habit. Sorry, LightSpectra, the last time we talked about the prior topic, you kept stating wrong things about the case and doubling down. So I'm linking the last time I gave you opportunity to correct them. I'm not proceeding with someone that takes soundbites and shows either ignorance or purposeful lying. Pay attention to why "Trump was not found guilty" is incorrect, and the question I tried three times to get a clear answer from you on. I guess four times now, but this is important to you given how much you bring it up. Increasing count to 5 on the difference between not guilty and not liable, and the results of that civil trial. Click the link and stop dodging if you love citing the example.
|
Northern Ireland27013 Posts
On April 16 2026 01:27 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2026 00:34 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 04:42 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 03:33 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 02:05 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 23:41 Introvert wrote:
The "eating cats and dogs" thing is a good example actually. Many people might think it was rediculous and a lie, but those same voters know they hated the border crisis and mass uncontrolled migration. They were not satisfied by the current administration pretending for years there was not a problem and then trying to blame Trump for it. It's not giving the voters too much credit, it is giving them too little. And it is giving a pass to your own sides objective policy and poltical failures and instead blaming opposing propaganda The thing is, this becomes rather circular. People are only so concerned in the first place because of a rather charged invective in the first place that is at best hyperbolic, at worst dishonest. There isn’t a particularly sober debate on this topic to begin with. You take a legitimate issue, ramp it up to the nth degree, and then well ‘it’s not being sorted’ spirals into more and more bullshit with ire increasingly out of kilter with reality becoming justification for more and more mendacity. If the nuts and bolts of the issue are sufficiently concerning already, one doesn’t need to say, claim Haitians are eating family pets or whatever to pick some crazy hypothetical that would never happen. Such patterns tend to characterise immigration discourse all over the shop. Now, I will say that unlike quite a few other places, the US does have a metric fuckton of illegal immigration, has done for quite a while, that can is seemingly perpetually kicked down the road, and it is something that concerns a lot of people. There’s plenty of legitimate material to slam the record on this of Democrats if one is so inclined. As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice. It wasn’t an exaggeration it was a complete fabrication. The circle I was referring to is perpetually escalating anti-immigrant rhetoric, with the justification that grievances aren’t being addressed so let’s up the ante. To the point that people end up angry about things that aren’t actually true, so then we ‘NEED’ to act because people are so riled up about the lies. If x issue is sufficiently motivating as it stands, in reality, and the other lot are blocking resolution, you can just perpetually slam the other lot It’s also grossly irresponsible to boot. Look I haven’t had my goals of a more equitable distribution of wealth met, it’s frustrating. Ergo it’s totally fine for me to say that the rich are operating an elaborate network where they’re abducting children to harvest their organs for eternal youth. We have to seize their wealth to stop this outrage! It’s an expensive racket after all. Totally defensible too given your own stated rationale. I think there’s a legitimate problem that’s not being dealt with, the other side is lying in my view so I can just make stuff up to try and force the issue. Why do you come out and bat for this kind of bollocks? I’ve even laid it out for you on almost innumerable occasions. You can simply do this: 1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. 2. The President of the US banging on about Haitians eating family pets is disgraceful And you can just swap out point two for whatever the issue is being discussed and people will still potentially disagree, but it’ll be on the terms of whatever the actual issue disagreement is. If you were some MAGA diehard with a nice print of Trump as Jesus hanging on your wall it would make sense, but according to you you have no particular love for the man. For the record I think policy in general in this specific area is a disaster. To a degree I’d consider technically bipartisan, as the two parties in combination can’t get shit done and come up with something sensible and actionable. But the Dems specifically as well. In both optics and to my particular sensibilities. Sanctuary cities, ‘no human is illegal’ and all that craic is all well and good if you have other mechanisms but oh, you don’t. It’s political poison for even people with very moderate views on immigration. Secondly, I think it encourages the expansion of an easily exploitable underclass who lack fundamental rights. Not very progressive stuff there. Or put another way, if you can’t get amnesties, paths to citizenship etc done, which would be my preference, then don’t further encourage a growth in that problem. I’m broad brushing a bit here obviously, but I think some of the approach and rhetoric is daft in this domain. Even if they don’t ultimately deliver no governing party I’m aware of in Europe goes in this particular kind of direction. Lots of words to totally misread the point of what i said. I didn't defend his rhetoric, I defended the voters preferring him on border security to Biden/Kamala. Having a secure border is related to, but still a different issue than what to do when people are here. It's the entire reason we have to figure that out in the first place. Voters preferred Trump on policy, which is exactly how we want voters deciding. Rhetoric of course, rather famously known for not changing opinions, or altering positions. Not studied in various forms for that reason for millennia… No you didn’t defend his rhetoric, just kinda danced around it and equivocated a bit. I don’t believe you think we live in a magical world where policy preferences aren’t somewhat shaped by public rhetoric and the media sphere, and somewhat spring from the ether. But you do seem to argue that way, that Trump’s rhetoric can be decoupled from policy entirely, and there’s not a symbiotic link there. I mean not just Trump obviously, that’s just how politics in large nation-states works in general. If you’re arguing that the more bullshit end of the scale maybe doesn’t move the needle that much on this particular topic and many Americans already have strong convictions on desirable policy here, I mean yeah I’d agree there. On April 15 2026 06:09 dyhb wrote:On April 15 2026 04:42 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 03:33 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 02:05 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 23:41 Introvert wrote:
The "eating cats and dogs" thing is a good example actually. Many people might think it was rediculous and a lie, but those same voters know they hated the border crisis and mass uncontrolled migration. They were not satisfied by the current administration pretending for years there was not a problem and then trying to blame Trump for it. It's not giving the voters too much credit, it is giving them too little. And it is giving a pass to your own sides objective policy and poltical failures and instead blaming opposing propaganda The thing is, this becomes rather circular. People are only so concerned in the first place because of a rather charged invective in the first place that is at best hyperbolic, at worst dishonest. There isn’t a particularly sober debate on this topic to begin with. You take a legitimate issue, ramp it up to the nth degree, and then well ‘it’s not being sorted’ spirals into more and more bullshit with ire increasingly out of kilter with reality becoming justification for more and more mendacity. If the nuts and bolts of the issue are sufficiently concerning already, one doesn’t need to say, claim Haitians are eating family pets or whatever to pick some crazy hypothetical that would never happen. Such patterns tend to characterise immigration discourse all over the shop. Now, I will say that unlike quite a few other places, the US does have a metric fuckton of illegal immigration, has done for quite a while, that can is seemingly perpetually kicked down the road, and it is something that concerns a lot of people. There’s plenty of legitimate material to slam the record on this of Democrats if one is so inclined. As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice. It wasn’t an exaggeration it was a complete fabrication. The circle I was referring to is perpetually escalating anti-immigrant rhetoric, with the justification that grievances aren’t being addressed so let’s up the ante. To the point that people end up angry about things that aren’t actually true, so then we ‘NEED’ to act because people are so riled up about the lies. If x issue is sufficiently motivating as it stands, in reality, and the other lot are blocking resolution, you can just perpetually slam the other lot It’s also grossly irresponsible to boot. Look I haven’t had my goals of a more equitable distribution of wealth met, it’s frustrating. Ergo it’s totally fine for me to say that the rich are operating an elaborate network where they’re abducting children to harvest their organs for eternal youth. We have to seize their wealth to stop this outrage! It’s an expensive racket after all. Totally defensible too given your own stated rationale. I think there’s a legitimate problem that’s not being dealt with, the other side is lying in my view so I can just make stuff up to try and force the issue. Why do you come out and bat for this kind of bollocks? I’ve even laid it out for you on almost innumerable occasions. You can simply do this: 1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. 2. The President of the US banging on about Haitians eating family pets is disgraceful And you can just swap out point two for whatever the issue is being discussed and people will still potentially disagree, but it’ll be on the terms of whatever the actual issue disagreement is. If you were some MAGA diehard with a nice print of Trump as Jesus hanging on your wall it would make sense, but according to you you have no particular love for the man. For the record I think policy in general in this specific area is a disaster. To a degree I’d consider technically bipartisan, as the two parties in combination can’t get shit done and come up with something sensible and actionable. But the Dems specifically as well. In both optics and to my particular sensibilities. Sanctuary cities, ‘no human is illegal’ and all that craic is all well and good if you have other mechanisms but oh, you don’t. It’s political poison for even people with very moderate views on immigration. Secondly, I think it encourages the expansion of an easily exploitable underclass who lack fundamental rights. Not very progressive stuff there. Or put another way, if you can’t get amnesties, paths to citizenship etc done, which would be my preference, then don’t further encourage a growth in that problem. I’m broad brushing a bit here obviously, but I think some of the approach and rhetoric is daft in this domain. Even if they don’t ultimately deliver no governing party I’m aware of in Europe goes in this particular kind of direction. Lots of words to totally misread the point of what i said. I didn't defend his rhetoric, I defended the voters preferring him on border security to Biden/Kamala. Having a secure border is related to, but still a different issue than what to do when people are here. It's the entire reason we have to figure that out in the first place. Voters preferred Trump on policy, which is exactly how we want voters deciding. On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:
You can simply do this:
1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. In the middle of the ramble, this is basically agreement couched in all the other baggage. Voters can discern bad policy/policy results, and make a vote on that decision, essentially giving the other team their shot to do a better job. The free association exercise of everything else that must be said while admitting to the basic point is just a style. It’s not something I disagreed with to begin with. How are they discerning that? It’s a complex auld world out there as it is, the more bullshit out there the harder it becomes. Hence I think it’s important that say, the President of the US just completely bullshitting is nae summat that should be tolerated or handwaved away. I danced around nothing. But because my post didn't contain the required ritual denunciation you think I did. You understood my point but decided for whatever reason to, quite frankly, ramble and rant first, something apprently becoming a habit around here. My point was very straightforward and I'm glad you agree. When given a choice between someone who makes stuff up but has a credible claim to the willingness and ability to solve the problem, and someone who uses nice rhetoric but still lies ("border is secure") and shows no desire to fix it, people will often but not always vote for the result they want not the feels they want. You can argue that Trumpy rhetoric is about feels, and that's true. But the reason I said this is a good example is because the magnitude of the problem itself made it impossible to dismiss as stirred up fear mongering.
I mean Trump had a willingness to try and solve the stolen election ‘problem’ too
If the problem is as bad as it is, here’s a handy two-point plan.
1. The Dems aren’t fixing the problem
2. The Dems have lied about things like the border being secure.
One can keep ramming that home and win on it.
Trump instead lies blatantly in service of a cause he can probably win on anyway.
And these lies can have pretty considerable consequences. I’ve seen them in my own country, although thankfully in this instance we didn’t see anti-Haitian pogroms or what have you.
It is poisonous, demagogic shite and should not be entertained, not one iota.
I say this for my own ‘side’ too as it were. We all know politicians lie or spin things, but if the Trumpian standard becomes some future baseline my god that will be a clusterfuck and a half.
|
Northern Ireland27013 Posts
On April 16 2026 01:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think part of what both Intro and Wombat are getting at is:
If I say there are too many calories in fast food and I prefer not to be obese. Who should I be mad at for still being fat?
You will have to elaborate as I didn’t get this analogy, albeit my brain is on slow mode today!
|
On April 16 2026 01:50 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2026 01:27 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2026 00:34 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 04:42 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 03:33 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 02:05 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 23:41 Introvert wrote:
The "eating cats and dogs" thing is a good example actually. Many people might think it was rediculous and a lie, but those same voters know they hated the border crisis and mass uncontrolled migration. They were not satisfied by the current administration pretending for years there was not a problem and then trying to blame Trump for it. It's not giving the voters too much credit, it is giving them too little. And it is giving a pass to your own sides objective policy and poltical failures and instead blaming opposing propaganda The thing is, this becomes rather circular. People are only so concerned in the first place because of a rather charged invective in the first place that is at best hyperbolic, at worst dishonest. There isn’t a particularly sober debate on this topic to begin with. You take a legitimate issue, ramp it up to the nth degree, and then well ‘it’s not being sorted’ spirals into more and more bullshit with ire increasingly out of kilter with reality becoming justification for more and more mendacity. If the nuts and bolts of the issue are sufficiently concerning already, one doesn’t need to say, claim Haitians are eating family pets or whatever to pick some crazy hypothetical that would never happen. Such patterns tend to characterise immigration discourse all over the shop. Now, I will say that unlike quite a few other places, the US does have a metric fuckton of illegal immigration, has done for quite a while, that can is seemingly perpetually kicked down the road, and it is something that concerns a lot of people. There’s plenty of legitimate material to slam the record on this of Democrats if one is so inclined. As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice. It wasn’t an exaggeration it was a complete fabrication. The circle I was referring to is perpetually escalating anti-immigrant rhetoric, with the justification that grievances aren’t being addressed so let’s up the ante. To the point that people end up angry about things that aren’t actually true, so then we ‘NEED’ to act because people are so riled up about the lies. If x issue is sufficiently motivating as it stands, in reality, and the other lot are blocking resolution, you can just perpetually slam the other lot It’s also grossly irresponsible to boot. Look I haven’t had my goals of a more equitable distribution of wealth met, it’s frustrating. Ergo it’s totally fine for me to say that the rich are operating an elaborate network where they’re abducting children to harvest their organs for eternal youth. We have to seize their wealth to stop this outrage! It’s an expensive racket after all. Totally defensible too given your own stated rationale. I think there’s a legitimate problem that’s not being dealt with, the other side is lying in my view so I can just make stuff up to try and force the issue. Why do you come out and bat for this kind of bollocks? I’ve even laid it out for you on almost innumerable occasions. You can simply do this: 1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. 2. The President of the US banging on about Haitians eating family pets is disgraceful And you can just swap out point two for whatever the issue is being discussed and people will still potentially disagree, but it’ll be on the terms of whatever the actual issue disagreement is. If you were some MAGA diehard with a nice print of Trump as Jesus hanging on your wall it would make sense, but according to you you have no particular love for the man. For the record I think policy in general in this specific area is a disaster. To a degree I’d consider technically bipartisan, as the two parties in combination can’t get shit done and come up with something sensible and actionable. But the Dems specifically as well. In both optics and to my particular sensibilities. Sanctuary cities, ‘no human is illegal’ and all that craic is all well and good if you have other mechanisms but oh, you don’t. It’s political poison for even people with very moderate views on immigration. Secondly, I think it encourages the expansion of an easily exploitable underclass who lack fundamental rights. Not very progressive stuff there. Or put another way, if you can’t get amnesties, paths to citizenship etc done, which would be my preference, then don’t further encourage a growth in that problem. I’m broad brushing a bit here obviously, but I think some of the approach and rhetoric is daft in this domain. Even if they don’t ultimately deliver no governing party I’m aware of in Europe goes in this particular kind of direction. Lots of words to totally misread the point of what i said. I didn't defend his rhetoric, I defended the voters preferring him on border security to Biden/Kamala. Having a secure border is related to, but still a different issue than what to do when people are here. It's the entire reason we have to figure that out in the first place. Voters preferred Trump on policy, which is exactly how we want voters deciding. Rhetoric of course, rather famously known for not changing opinions, or altering positions. Not studied in various forms for that reason for millennia… No you didn’t defend his rhetoric, just kinda danced around it and equivocated a bit. I don’t believe you think we live in a magical world where policy preferences aren’t somewhat shaped by public rhetoric and the media sphere, and somewhat spring from the ether. But you do seem to argue that way, that Trump’s rhetoric can be decoupled from policy entirely, and there’s not a symbiotic link there. I mean not just Trump obviously, that’s just how politics in large nation-states works in general. If you’re arguing that the more bullshit end of the scale maybe doesn’t move the needle that much on this particular topic and many Americans already have strong convictions on desirable policy here, I mean yeah I’d agree there. On April 15 2026 06:09 dyhb wrote:On April 15 2026 04:42 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 03:33 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 02:05 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 23:41 Introvert wrote:
The "eating cats and dogs" thing is a good example actually. Many people might think it was rediculous and a lie, but those same voters know they hated the border crisis and mass uncontrolled migration. They were not satisfied by the current administration pretending for years there was not a problem and then trying to blame Trump for it. It's not giving the voters too much credit, it is giving them too little. And it is giving a pass to your own sides objective policy and poltical failures and instead blaming opposing propaganda The thing is, this becomes rather circular. People are only so concerned in the first place because of a rather charged invective in the first place that is at best hyperbolic, at worst dishonest. There isn’t a particularly sober debate on this topic to begin with. You take a legitimate issue, ramp it up to the nth degree, and then well ‘it’s not being sorted’ spirals into more and more bullshit with ire increasingly out of kilter with reality becoming justification for more and more mendacity. If the nuts and bolts of the issue are sufficiently concerning already, one doesn’t need to say, claim Haitians are eating family pets or whatever to pick some crazy hypothetical that would never happen. Such patterns tend to characterise immigration discourse all over the shop. Now, I will say that unlike quite a few other places, the US does have a metric fuckton of illegal immigration, has done for quite a while, that can is seemingly perpetually kicked down the road, and it is something that concerns a lot of people. There’s plenty of legitimate material to slam the record on this of Democrats if one is so inclined. As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice. It wasn’t an exaggeration it was a complete fabrication. The circle I was referring to is perpetually escalating anti-immigrant rhetoric, with the justification that grievances aren’t being addressed so let’s up the ante. To the point that people end up angry about things that aren’t actually true, so then we ‘NEED’ to act because people are so riled up about the lies. If x issue is sufficiently motivating as it stands, in reality, and the other lot are blocking resolution, you can just perpetually slam the other lot It’s also grossly irresponsible to boot. Look I haven’t had my goals of a more equitable distribution of wealth met, it’s frustrating. Ergo it’s totally fine for me to say that the rich are operating an elaborate network where they’re abducting children to harvest their organs for eternal youth. We have to seize their wealth to stop this outrage! It’s an expensive racket after all. Totally defensible too given your own stated rationale. I think there’s a legitimate problem that’s not being dealt with, the other side is lying in my view so I can just make stuff up to try and force the issue. Why do you come out and bat for this kind of bollocks? I’ve even laid it out for you on almost innumerable occasions. You can simply do this: 1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. 2. The President of the US banging on about Haitians eating family pets is disgraceful And you can just swap out point two for whatever the issue is being discussed and people will still potentially disagree, but it’ll be on the terms of whatever the actual issue disagreement is. If you were some MAGA diehard with a nice print of Trump as Jesus hanging on your wall it would make sense, but according to you you have no particular love for the man. For the record I think policy in general in this specific area is a disaster. To a degree I’d consider technically bipartisan, as the two parties in combination can’t get shit done and come up with something sensible and actionable. But the Dems specifically as well. In both optics and to my particular sensibilities. Sanctuary cities, ‘no human is illegal’ and all that craic is all well and good if you have other mechanisms but oh, you don’t. It’s political poison for even people with very moderate views on immigration. Secondly, I think it encourages the expansion of an easily exploitable underclass who lack fundamental rights. Not very progressive stuff there. Or put another way, if you can’t get amnesties, paths to citizenship etc done, which would be my preference, then don’t further encourage a growth in that problem. I’m broad brushing a bit here obviously, but I think some of the approach and rhetoric is daft in this domain. Even if they don’t ultimately deliver no governing party I’m aware of in Europe goes in this particular kind of direction. Lots of words to totally misread the point of what i said. I didn't defend his rhetoric, I defended the voters preferring him on border security to Biden/Kamala. Having a secure border is related to, but still a different issue than what to do when people are here. It's the entire reason we have to figure that out in the first place. Voters preferred Trump on policy, which is exactly how we want voters deciding. On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:
You can simply do this:
1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. In the middle of the ramble, this is basically agreement couched in all the other baggage. Voters can discern bad policy/policy results, and make a vote on that decision, essentially giving the other team their shot to do a better job. The free association exercise of everything else that must be said while admitting to the basic point is just a style. It’s not something I disagreed with to begin with. How are they discerning that? It’s a complex auld world out there as it is, the more bullshit out there the harder it becomes. Hence I think it’s important that say, the President of the US just completely bullshitting is nae summat that should be tolerated or handwaved away. I danced around nothing. But because my post didn't contain the required ritual denunciation you think I did. You understood my point but decided for whatever reason to, quite frankly, ramble and rant first, something apprently becoming a habit around here. My point was very straightforward and I'm glad you agree. When given a choice between someone who makes stuff up but has a credible claim to the willingness and ability to solve the problem, and someone who uses nice rhetoric but still lies ("border is secure") and shows no desire to fix it, people will often but not always vote for the result they want not the feels they want. You can argue that Trumpy rhetoric is about feels, and that's true. But the reason I said this is a good example is because the magnitude of the problem itself made it impossible to dismiss as stirred up fear mongering. + Show Spoiler +I mean Trump had a willingness to try and solve the stolen election ‘problem’ too
If the problem is as bad as it is, here’s a handy two-point plan.
1. The Dems aren’t fixing the problem
2. The Dems have lied about things like the border being secure.
One can keep ramming that home and win on it.
Trump instead lies blatantly in service of a cause he can probably win on anyway.
And these lies can have pretty considerable consequences. I’ve seen them in my own country, although thankfully in this instance we didn’t see anti-Haitian pogroms or what have you.
It is poisonous, demagogic shite and should not be entertained, not one iota.
I say this for my own ‘side’ too as it were. We all know politicians lie or spin things, but if the Trumpian standard becomes some future baseline my god that will be a clusterfuck and a half.
That ship has sailed. That's what 'have you seen the other guys' was. Remember when people were competing to come up with the most absurd alternative they would still vote for over Trump? Making Trump the new baseline has been a bipartisan effort.
|
Northern Ireland27013 Posts
On April 16 2026 01:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2026 01:50 WombaT wrote:On April 16 2026 01:27 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2026 00:34 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 04:42 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 03:33 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 02:05 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 23:41 Introvert wrote:
The "eating cats and dogs" thing is a good example actually. Many people might think it was rediculous and a lie, but those same voters know they hated the border crisis and mass uncontrolled migration. They were not satisfied by the current administration pretending for years there was not a problem and then trying to blame Trump for it. It's not giving the voters too much credit, it is giving them too little. And it is giving a pass to your own sides objective policy and poltical failures and instead blaming opposing propaganda The thing is, this becomes rather circular. People are only so concerned in the first place because of a rather charged invective in the first place that is at best hyperbolic, at worst dishonest. There isn’t a particularly sober debate on this topic to begin with. You take a legitimate issue, ramp it up to the nth degree, and then well ‘it’s not being sorted’ spirals into more and more bullshit with ire increasingly out of kilter with reality becoming justification for more and more mendacity. If the nuts and bolts of the issue are sufficiently concerning already, one doesn’t need to say, claim Haitians are eating family pets or whatever to pick some crazy hypothetical that would never happen. Such patterns tend to characterise immigration discourse all over the shop. Now, I will say that unlike quite a few other places, the US does have a metric fuckton of illegal immigration, has done for quite a while, that can is seemingly perpetually kicked down the road, and it is something that concerns a lot of people. There’s plenty of legitimate material to slam the record on this of Democrats if one is so inclined. As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice. It wasn’t an exaggeration it was a complete fabrication. The circle I was referring to is perpetually escalating anti-immigrant rhetoric, with the justification that grievances aren’t being addressed so let’s up the ante. To the point that people end up angry about things that aren’t actually true, so then we ‘NEED’ to act because people are so riled up about the lies. If x issue is sufficiently motivating as it stands, in reality, and the other lot are blocking resolution, you can just perpetually slam the other lot It’s also grossly irresponsible to boot. Look I haven’t had my goals of a more equitable distribution of wealth met, it’s frustrating. Ergo it’s totally fine for me to say that the rich are operating an elaborate network where they’re abducting children to harvest their organs for eternal youth. We have to seize their wealth to stop this outrage! It’s an expensive racket after all. Totally defensible too given your own stated rationale. I think there’s a legitimate problem that’s not being dealt with, the other side is lying in my view so I can just make stuff up to try and force the issue. Why do you come out and bat for this kind of bollocks? I’ve even laid it out for you on almost innumerable occasions. You can simply do this: 1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. 2. The President of the US banging on about Haitians eating family pets is disgraceful And you can just swap out point two for whatever the issue is being discussed and people will still potentially disagree, but it’ll be on the terms of whatever the actual issue disagreement is. If you were some MAGA diehard with a nice print of Trump as Jesus hanging on your wall it would make sense, but according to you you have no particular love for the man. For the record I think policy in general in this specific area is a disaster. To a degree I’d consider technically bipartisan, as the two parties in combination can’t get shit done and come up with something sensible and actionable. But the Dems specifically as well. In both optics and to my particular sensibilities. Sanctuary cities, ‘no human is illegal’ and all that craic is all well and good if you have other mechanisms but oh, you don’t. It’s political poison for even people with very moderate views on immigration. Secondly, I think it encourages the expansion of an easily exploitable underclass who lack fundamental rights. Not very progressive stuff there. Or put another way, if you can’t get amnesties, paths to citizenship etc done, which would be my preference, then don’t further encourage a growth in that problem. I’m broad brushing a bit here obviously, but I think some of the approach and rhetoric is daft in this domain. Even if they don’t ultimately deliver no governing party I’m aware of in Europe goes in this particular kind of direction. Lots of words to totally misread the point of what i said. I didn't defend his rhetoric, I defended the voters preferring him on border security to Biden/Kamala. Having a secure border is related to, but still a different issue than what to do when people are here. It's the entire reason we have to figure that out in the first place. Voters preferred Trump on policy, which is exactly how we want voters deciding. Rhetoric of course, rather famously known for not changing opinions, or altering positions. Not studied in various forms for that reason for millennia… No you didn’t defend his rhetoric, just kinda danced around it and equivocated a bit. I don’t believe you think we live in a magical world where policy preferences aren’t somewhat shaped by public rhetoric and the media sphere, and somewhat spring from the ether. But you do seem to argue that way, that Trump’s rhetoric can be decoupled from policy entirely, and there’s not a symbiotic link there. I mean not just Trump obviously, that’s just how politics in large nation-states works in general. If you’re arguing that the more bullshit end of the scale maybe doesn’t move the needle that much on this particular topic and many Americans already have strong convictions on desirable policy here, I mean yeah I’d agree there. On April 15 2026 06:09 dyhb wrote:On April 15 2026 04:42 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 03:33 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 02:05 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 23:41 Introvert wrote:
The "eating cats and dogs" thing is a good example actually. Many people might think it was rediculous and a lie, but those same voters know they hated the border crisis and mass uncontrolled migration. They were not satisfied by the current administration pretending for years there was not a problem and then trying to blame Trump for it. It's not giving the voters too much credit, it is giving them too little. And it is giving a pass to your own sides objective policy and poltical failures and instead blaming opposing propaganda The thing is, this becomes rather circular. People are only so concerned in the first place because of a rather charged invective in the first place that is at best hyperbolic, at worst dishonest. There isn’t a particularly sober debate on this topic to begin with. You take a legitimate issue, ramp it up to the nth degree, and then well ‘it’s not being sorted’ spirals into more and more bullshit with ire increasingly out of kilter with reality becoming justification for more and more mendacity. If the nuts and bolts of the issue are sufficiently concerning already, one doesn’t need to say, claim Haitians are eating family pets or whatever to pick some crazy hypothetical that would never happen. Such patterns tend to characterise immigration discourse all over the shop. Now, I will say that unlike quite a few other places, the US does have a metric fuckton of illegal immigration, has done for quite a while, that can is seemingly perpetually kicked down the road, and it is something that concerns a lot of people. There’s plenty of legitimate material to slam the record on this of Democrats if one is so inclined. As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice. It wasn’t an exaggeration it was a complete fabrication. The circle I was referring to is perpetually escalating anti-immigrant rhetoric, with the justification that grievances aren’t being addressed so let’s up the ante. To the point that people end up angry about things that aren’t actually true, so then we ‘NEED’ to act because people are so riled up about the lies. If x issue is sufficiently motivating as it stands, in reality, and the other lot are blocking resolution, you can just perpetually slam the other lot It’s also grossly irresponsible to boot. Look I haven’t had my goals of a more equitable distribution of wealth met, it’s frustrating. Ergo it’s totally fine for me to say that the rich are operating an elaborate network where they’re abducting children to harvest their organs for eternal youth. We have to seize their wealth to stop this outrage! It’s an expensive racket after all. Totally defensible too given your own stated rationale. I think there’s a legitimate problem that’s not being dealt with, the other side is lying in my view so I can just make stuff up to try and force the issue. Why do you come out and bat for this kind of bollocks? I’ve even laid it out for you on almost innumerable occasions. You can simply do this: 1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. 2. The President of the US banging on about Haitians eating family pets is disgraceful And you can just swap out point two for whatever the issue is being discussed and people will still potentially disagree, but it’ll be on the terms of whatever the actual issue disagreement is. If you were some MAGA diehard with a nice print of Trump as Jesus hanging on your wall it would make sense, but according to you you have no particular love for the man. For the record I think policy in general in this specific area is a disaster. To a degree I’d consider technically bipartisan, as the two parties in combination can’t get shit done and come up with something sensible and actionable. But the Dems specifically as well. In both optics and to my particular sensibilities. Sanctuary cities, ‘no human is illegal’ and all that craic is all well and good if you have other mechanisms but oh, you don’t. It’s political poison for even people with very moderate views on immigration. Secondly, I think it encourages the expansion of an easily exploitable underclass who lack fundamental rights. Not very progressive stuff there. Or put another way, if you can’t get amnesties, paths to citizenship etc done, which would be my preference, then don’t further encourage a growth in that problem. I’m broad brushing a bit here obviously, but I think some of the approach and rhetoric is daft in this domain. Even if they don’t ultimately deliver no governing party I’m aware of in Europe goes in this particular kind of direction. Lots of words to totally misread the point of what i said. I didn't defend his rhetoric, I defended the voters preferring him on border security to Biden/Kamala. Having a secure border is related to, but still a different issue than what to do when people are here. It's the entire reason we have to figure that out in the first place. Voters preferred Trump on policy, which is exactly how we want voters deciding. On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:
You can simply do this:
1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. In the middle of the ramble, this is basically agreement couched in all the other baggage. Voters can discern bad policy/policy results, and make a vote on that decision, essentially giving the other team their shot to do a better job. The free association exercise of everything else that must be said while admitting to the basic point is just a style. It’s not something I disagreed with to begin with. How are they discerning that? It’s a complex auld world out there as it is, the more bullshit out there the harder it becomes. Hence I think it’s important that say, the President of the US just completely bullshitting is nae summat that should be tolerated or handwaved away. I danced around nothing. But because my post didn't contain the required ritual denunciation you think I did. You understood my point but decided for whatever reason to, quite frankly, ramble and rant first, something apprently becoming a habit around here. My point was very straightforward and I'm glad you agree. When given a choice between someone who makes stuff up but has a credible claim to the willingness and ability to solve the problem, and someone who uses nice rhetoric but still lies ("border is secure") and shows no desire to fix it, people will often but not always vote for the result they want not the feels they want. You can argue that Trumpy rhetoric is about feels, and that's true. But the reason I said this is a good example is because the magnitude of the problem itself made it impossible to dismiss as stirred up fear mongering. + Show Spoiler +I mean Trump had a willingness to try and solve the stolen election ‘problem’ too
If the problem is as bad as it is, here’s a handy two-point plan.
1. The Dems aren’t fixing the problem
2. The Dems have lied about things like the border being secure.
One can keep ramming that home and win on it.
Trump instead lies blatantly in service of a cause he can probably win on anyway.
And these lies can have pretty considerable consequences. I’ve seen them in my own country, although thankfully in this instance we didn’t see anti-Haitian pogroms or what have you.
It is poisonous, demagogic shite and should not be entertained, not one iota.
I say this for my own ‘side’ too as it were. We all know politicians lie or spin things, but if the Trumpian standard becomes some future baseline my god that will be a clusterfuck and a half. That ship has sailed. That's what 'have you seen the other guys' was. Remember when people were competing to come up with the most absurd alternative they would still vote for over Trump? Making Trump the new baseline has been a bipartisan effort.
I’m not really sure how it’s been a bipartisan thing myself
As per my point, and more directed at folks like Intro who lean conservative.
If the ‘Post-Truth’ world becomes the new normal, and isn’t some aberrant phase, the left are going to do it too at some stage.
I personally don’t think it’s a desirable precedent full stop, I think truth or at least an attempt at it is kinda pretty fucking important as a base principle. In a purely partisan pragmatic sense, don’t employ weapons you aren’t comfortable that your opponents may also wield.
|
On April 16 2026 02:14 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2026 01:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2026 01:50 WombaT wrote:On April 16 2026 01:27 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2026 00:34 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 04:42 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 03:33 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 02:05 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 23:41 Introvert wrote:
The "eating cats and dogs" thing is a good example actually. Many people might think it was rediculous and a lie, but those same voters know they hated the border crisis and mass uncontrolled migration. They were not satisfied by the current administration pretending for years there was not a problem and then trying to blame Trump for it. It's not giving the voters too much credit, it is giving them too little. And it is giving a pass to your own sides objective policy and poltical failures and instead blaming opposing propaganda The thing is, this becomes rather circular. People are only so concerned in the first place because of a rather charged invective in the first place that is at best hyperbolic, at worst dishonest. There isn’t a particularly sober debate on this topic to begin with. You take a legitimate issue, ramp it up to the nth degree, and then well ‘it’s not being sorted’ spirals into more and more bullshit with ire increasingly out of kilter with reality becoming justification for more and more mendacity. If the nuts and bolts of the issue are sufficiently concerning already, one doesn’t need to say, claim Haitians are eating family pets or whatever to pick some crazy hypothetical that would never happen. Such patterns tend to characterise immigration discourse all over the shop. Now, I will say that unlike quite a few other places, the US does have a metric fuckton of illegal immigration, has done for quite a while, that can is seemingly perpetually kicked down the road, and it is something that concerns a lot of people. There’s plenty of legitimate material to slam the record on this of Democrats if one is so inclined. As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice. It wasn’t an exaggeration it was a complete fabrication. The circle I was referring to is perpetually escalating anti-immigrant rhetoric, with the justification that grievances aren’t being addressed so let’s up the ante. To the point that people end up angry about things that aren’t actually true, so then we ‘NEED’ to act because people are so riled up about the lies. If x issue is sufficiently motivating as it stands, in reality, and the other lot are blocking resolution, you can just perpetually slam the other lot It’s also grossly irresponsible to boot. Look I haven’t had my goals of a more equitable distribution of wealth met, it’s frustrating. Ergo it’s totally fine for me to say that the rich are operating an elaborate network where they’re abducting children to harvest their organs for eternal youth. We have to seize their wealth to stop this outrage! It’s an expensive racket after all. Totally defensible too given your own stated rationale. I think there’s a legitimate problem that’s not being dealt with, the other side is lying in my view so I can just make stuff up to try and force the issue. Why do you come out and bat for this kind of bollocks? I’ve even laid it out for you on almost innumerable occasions. You can simply do this: 1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. 2. The President of the US banging on about Haitians eating family pets is disgraceful And you can just swap out point two for whatever the issue is being discussed and people will still potentially disagree, but it’ll be on the terms of whatever the actual issue disagreement is. If you were some MAGA diehard with a nice print of Trump as Jesus hanging on your wall it would make sense, but according to you you have no particular love for the man. For the record I think policy in general in this specific area is a disaster. To a degree I’d consider technically bipartisan, as the two parties in combination can’t get shit done and come up with something sensible and actionable. But the Dems specifically as well. In both optics and to my particular sensibilities. Sanctuary cities, ‘no human is illegal’ and all that craic is all well and good if you have other mechanisms but oh, you don’t. It’s political poison for even people with very moderate views on immigration. Secondly, I think it encourages the expansion of an easily exploitable underclass who lack fundamental rights. Not very progressive stuff there. Or put another way, if you can’t get amnesties, paths to citizenship etc done, which would be my preference, then don’t further encourage a growth in that problem. I’m broad brushing a bit here obviously, but I think some of the approach and rhetoric is daft in this domain. Even if they don’t ultimately deliver no governing party I’m aware of in Europe goes in this particular kind of direction. Lots of words to totally misread the point of what i said. I didn't defend his rhetoric, I defended the voters preferring him on border security to Biden/Kamala. Having a secure border is related to, but still a different issue than what to do when people are here. It's the entire reason we have to figure that out in the first place. Voters preferred Trump on policy, which is exactly how we want voters deciding. Rhetoric of course, rather famously known for not changing opinions, or altering positions. Not studied in various forms for that reason for millennia… No you didn’t defend his rhetoric, just kinda danced around it and equivocated a bit. I don’t believe you think we live in a magical world where policy preferences aren’t somewhat shaped by public rhetoric and the media sphere, and somewhat spring from the ether. But you do seem to argue that way, that Trump’s rhetoric can be decoupled from policy entirely, and there’s not a symbiotic link there. I mean not just Trump obviously, that’s just how politics in large nation-states works in general. If you’re arguing that the more bullshit end of the scale maybe doesn’t move the needle that much on this particular topic and many Americans already have strong convictions on desirable policy here, I mean yeah I’d agree there. On April 15 2026 06:09 dyhb wrote:On April 15 2026 04:42 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 03:33 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 02:05 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
The thing is, this becomes rather circular.
People are only so concerned in the first place because of a rather charged invective in the first place that is at best hyperbolic, at worst dishonest.
There isn’t a particularly sober debate on this topic to begin with.
You take a legitimate issue, ramp it up to the nth degree, and then well ‘it’s not being sorted’ spirals into more and more bullshit with ire increasingly out of kilter with reality becoming justification for more and more mendacity.
If the nuts and bolts of the issue are sufficiently concerning already, one doesn’t need to say, claim Haitians are eating family pets or whatever to pick some crazy hypothetical that would never happen.
Such patterns tend to characterise immigration discourse all over the shop.
Now, I will say that unlike quite a few other places, the US does have a metric fuckton of illegal immigration, has done for quite a while, that can is seemingly perpetually kicked down the road, and it is something that concerns a lot of people.
There’s plenty of legitimate material to slam the record on this of Democrats if one is so inclined. As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice. It wasn’t an exaggeration it was a complete fabrication. The circle I was referring to is perpetually escalating anti-immigrant rhetoric, with the justification that grievances aren’t being addressed so let’s up the ante. To the point that people end up angry about things that aren’t actually true, so then we ‘NEED’ to act because people are so riled up about the lies. If x issue is sufficiently motivating as it stands, in reality, and the other lot are blocking resolution, you can just perpetually slam the other lot It’s also grossly irresponsible to boot. Look I haven’t had my goals of a more equitable distribution of wealth met, it’s frustrating. Ergo it’s totally fine for me to say that the rich are operating an elaborate network where they’re abducting children to harvest their organs for eternal youth. We have to seize their wealth to stop this outrage! It’s an expensive racket after all. Totally defensible too given your own stated rationale. I think there’s a legitimate problem that’s not being dealt with, the other side is lying in my view so I can just make stuff up to try and force the issue. Why do you come out and bat for this kind of bollocks? I’ve even laid it out for you on almost innumerable occasions. You can simply do this: 1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. 2. The President of the US banging on about Haitians eating family pets is disgraceful And you can just swap out point two for whatever the issue is being discussed and people will still potentially disagree, but it’ll be on the terms of whatever the actual issue disagreement is. If you were some MAGA diehard with a nice print of Trump as Jesus hanging on your wall it would make sense, but according to you you have no particular love for the man. For the record I think policy in general in this specific area is a disaster. To a degree I’d consider technically bipartisan, as the two parties in combination can’t get shit done and come up with something sensible and actionable. But the Dems specifically as well. In both optics and to my particular sensibilities. Sanctuary cities, ‘no human is illegal’ and all that craic is all well and good if you have other mechanisms but oh, you don’t. It’s political poison for even people with very moderate views on immigration. Secondly, I think it encourages the expansion of an easily exploitable underclass who lack fundamental rights. Not very progressive stuff there. Or put another way, if you can’t get amnesties, paths to citizenship etc done, which would be my preference, then don’t further encourage a growth in that problem. I’m broad brushing a bit here obviously, but I think some of the approach and rhetoric is daft in this domain. Even if they don’t ultimately deliver no governing party I’m aware of in Europe goes in this particular kind of direction. Lots of words to totally misread the point of what i said. I didn't defend his rhetoric, I defended the voters preferring him on border security to Biden/Kamala. Having a secure border is related to, but still a different issue than what to do when people are here. It's the entire reason we have to figure that out in the first place. Voters preferred Trump on policy, which is exactly how we want voters deciding. On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:
You can simply do this:
1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. In the middle of the ramble, this is basically agreement couched in all the other baggage. Voters can discern bad policy/policy results, and make a vote on that decision, essentially giving the other team their shot to do a better job. The free association exercise of everything else that must be said while admitting to the basic point is just a style. It’s not something I disagreed with to begin with. How are they discerning that? It’s a complex auld world out there as it is, the more bullshit out there the harder it becomes. Hence I think it’s important that say, the President of the US just completely bullshitting is nae summat that should be tolerated or handwaved away. I danced around nothing. But because my post didn't contain the required ritual denunciation you think I did. You understood my point but decided for whatever reason to, quite frankly, ramble and rant first, something apprently becoming a habit around here. My point was very straightforward and I'm glad you agree. When given a choice between someone who makes stuff up but has a credible claim to the willingness and ability to solve the problem, and someone who uses nice rhetoric but still lies ("border is secure") and shows no desire to fix it, people will often but not always vote for the result they want not the feels they want. You can argue that Trumpy rhetoric is about feels, and that's true. But the reason I said this is a good example is because the magnitude of the problem itself made it impossible to dismiss as stirred up fear mongering. + Show Spoiler +I mean Trump had a willingness to try and solve the stolen election ‘problem’ too
If the problem is as bad as it is, here’s a handy two-point plan.
1. The Dems aren’t fixing the problem
2. The Dems have lied about things like the border being secure.
One can keep ramming that home and win on it.
Trump instead lies blatantly in service of a cause he can probably win on anyway.
And these lies can have pretty considerable consequences. I’ve seen them in my own country, although thankfully in this instance we didn’t see anti-Haitian pogroms or what have you.
It is poisonous, demagogic shite and should not be entertained, not one iota.
I say this for my own ‘side’ too as it were. We all know politicians lie or spin things, but if the Trumpian standard becomes some future baseline my god that will be a clusterfuck and a half. That ship has sailed. That's what 'have you seen the other guys' was. Remember when people were competing to come up with the most absurd alternative they would still vote for over Trump? Making Trump the new baseline has been a bipartisan effort. I’m not really sure how it’s been a bipartisan thing myself + Show Spoiler +As per my point, and more directed at folks like Intro who lean conservative.
If the ‘Post-Truth’ world becomes the new normal, and isn’t some aberrant phase, the left are going to do it too at some stage.
I personally don’t think it’s a desirable precedent full stop, I think truth or at least an attempt at it is kinda pretty fucking important as a base principle. In a purely partisan pragmatic sense, don’t employ weapons you aren’t comfortable that your opponents may also wield. Yes you are (besides me just telling you).
Democrats made it abundantly clear they could/would support anything that cleared the baseline represented by Trump.
|
On April 16 2026 01:46 dyhb wrote:
Click the link and stop dodging if you love citing the example.
Sure, if you insist:
A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.
|
Northern Ireland27013 Posts
On April 16 2026 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2026 02:14 WombaT wrote:On April 16 2026 01:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2026 01:50 WombaT wrote:On April 16 2026 01:27 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2026 00:34 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 04:42 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 03:33 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 02:05 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
The thing is, this becomes rather circular.
People are only so concerned in the first place because of a rather charged invective in the first place that is at best hyperbolic, at worst dishonest.
There isn’t a particularly sober debate on this topic to begin with.
You take a legitimate issue, ramp it up to the nth degree, and then well ‘it’s not being sorted’ spirals into more and more bullshit with ire increasingly out of kilter with reality becoming justification for more and more mendacity.
If the nuts and bolts of the issue are sufficiently concerning already, one doesn’t need to say, claim Haitians are eating family pets or whatever to pick some crazy hypothetical that would never happen.
Such patterns tend to characterise immigration discourse all over the shop.
Now, I will say that unlike quite a few other places, the US does have a metric fuckton of illegal immigration, has done for quite a while, that can is seemingly perpetually kicked down the road, and it is something that concerns a lot of people.
There’s plenty of legitimate material to slam the record on this of Democrats if one is so inclined. As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice. It wasn’t an exaggeration it was a complete fabrication. The circle I was referring to is perpetually escalating anti-immigrant rhetoric, with the justification that grievances aren’t being addressed so let’s up the ante. To the point that people end up angry about things that aren’t actually true, so then we ‘NEED’ to act because people are so riled up about the lies. If x issue is sufficiently motivating as it stands, in reality, and the other lot are blocking resolution, you can just perpetually slam the other lot It’s also grossly irresponsible to boot. Look I haven’t had my goals of a more equitable distribution of wealth met, it’s frustrating. Ergo it’s totally fine for me to say that the rich are operating an elaborate network where they’re abducting children to harvest their organs for eternal youth. We have to seize their wealth to stop this outrage! It’s an expensive racket after all. Totally defensible too given your own stated rationale. I think there’s a legitimate problem that’s not being dealt with, the other side is lying in my view so I can just make stuff up to try and force the issue. Why do you come out and bat for this kind of bollocks? I’ve even laid it out for you on almost innumerable occasions. You can simply do this: 1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. 2. The President of the US banging on about Haitians eating family pets is disgraceful And you can just swap out point two for whatever the issue is being discussed and people will still potentially disagree, but it’ll be on the terms of whatever the actual issue disagreement is. If you were some MAGA diehard with a nice print of Trump as Jesus hanging on your wall it would make sense, but according to you you have no particular love for the man. For the record I think policy in general in this specific area is a disaster. To a degree I’d consider technically bipartisan, as the two parties in combination can’t get shit done and come up with something sensible and actionable. But the Dems specifically as well. In both optics and to my particular sensibilities. Sanctuary cities, ‘no human is illegal’ and all that craic is all well and good if you have other mechanisms but oh, you don’t. It’s political poison for even people with very moderate views on immigration. Secondly, I think it encourages the expansion of an easily exploitable underclass who lack fundamental rights. Not very progressive stuff there. Or put another way, if you can’t get amnesties, paths to citizenship etc done, which would be my preference, then don’t further encourage a growth in that problem. I’m broad brushing a bit here obviously, but I think some of the approach and rhetoric is daft in this domain. Even if they don’t ultimately deliver no governing party I’m aware of in Europe goes in this particular kind of direction. Lots of words to totally misread the point of what i said. I didn't defend his rhetoric, I defended the voters preferring him on border security to Biden/Kamala. Having a secure border is related to, but still a different issue than what to do when people are here. It's the entire reason we have to figure that out in the first place. Voters preferred Trump on policy, which is exactly how we want voters deciding. Rhetoric of course, rather famously known for not changing opinions, or altering positions. Not studied in various forms for that reason for millennia… No you didn’t defend his rhetoric, just kinda danced around it and equivocated a bit. I don’t believe you think we live in a magical world where policy preferences aren’t somewhat shaped by public rhetoric and the media sphere, and somewhat spring from the ether. But you do seem to argue that way, that Trump’s rhetoric can be decoupled from policy entirely, and there’s not a symbiotic link there. I mean not just Trump obviously, that’s just how politics in large nation-states works in general. If you’re arguing that the more bullshit end of the scale maybe doesn’t move the needle that much on this particular topic and many Americans already have strong convictions on desirable policy here, I mean yeah I’d agree there. On April 15 2026 06:09 dyhb wrote:On April 15 2026 04:42 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 03:33 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice. It wasn’t an exaggeration it was a complete fabrication. The circle I was referring to is perpetually escalating anti-immigrant rhetoric, with the justification that grievances aren’t being addressed so let’s up the ante. To the point that people end up angry about things that aren’t actually true, so then we ‘NEED’ to act because people are so riled up about the lies. If x issue is sufficiently motivating as it stands, in reality, and the other lot are blocking resolution, you can just perpetually slam the other lot It’s also grossly irresponsible to boot. Look I haven’t had my goals of a more equitable distribution of wealth met, it’s frustrating. Ergo it’s totally fine for me to say that the rich are operating an elaborate network where they’re abducting children to harvest their organs for eternal youth. We have to seize their wealth to stop this outrage! It’s an expensive racket after all. Totally defensible too given your own stated rationale. I think there’s a legitimate problem that’s not being dealt with, the other side is lying in my view so I can just make stuff up to try and force the issue. Why do you come out and bat for this kind of bollocks? I’ve even laid it out for you on almost innumerable occasions. You can simply do this: 1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. 2. The President of the US banging on about Haitians eating family pets is disgraceful And you can just swap out point two for whatever the issue is being discussed and people will still potentially disagree, but it’ll be on the terms of whatever the actual issue disagreement is. If you were some MAGA diehard with a nice print of Trump as Jesus hanging on your wall it would make sense, but according to you you have no particular love for the man. For the record I think policy in general in this specific area is a disaster. To a degree I’d consider technically bipartisan, as the two parties in combination can’t get shit done and come up with something sensible and actionable. But the Dems specifically as well. In both optics and to my particular sensibilities. Sanctuary cities, ‘no human is illegal’ and all that craic is all well and good if you have other mechanisms but oh, you don’t. It’s political poison for even people with very moderate views on immigration. Secondly, I think it encourages the expansion of an easily exploitable underclass who lack fundamental rights. Not very progressive stuff there. Or put another way, if you can’t get amnesties, paths to citizenship etc done, which would be my preference, then don’t further encourage a growth in that problem. I’m broad brushing a bit here obviously, but I think some of the approach and rhetoric is daft in this domain. Even if they don’t ultimately deliver no governing party I’m aware of in Europe goes in this particular kind of direction. Lots of words to totally misread the point of what i said. I didn't defend his rhetoric, I defended the voters preferring him on border security to Biden/Kamala. Having a secure border is related to, but still a different issue than what to do when people are here. It's the entire reason we have to figure that out in the first place. Voters preferred Trump on policy, which is exactly how we want voters deciding. On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:
You can simply do this:
1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. In the middle of the ramble, this is basically agreement couched in all the other baggage. Voters can discern bad policy/policy results, and make a vote on that decision, essentially giving the other team their shot to do a better job. The free association exercise of everything else that must be said while admitting to the basic point is just a style. It’s not something I disagreed with to begin with. How are they discerning that? It’s a complex auld world out there as it is, the more bullshit out there the harder it becomes. Hence I think it’s important that say, the President of the US just completely bullshitting is nae summat that should be tolerated or handwaved away. I danced around nothing. But because my post didn't contain the required ritual denunciation you think I did. You understood my point but decided for whatever reason to, quite frankly, ramble and rant first, something apprently becoming a habit around here. My point was very straightforward and I'm glad you agree. When given a choice between someone who makes stuff up but has a credible claim to the willingness and ability to solve the problem, and someone who uses nice rhetoric but still lies ("border is secure") and shows no desire to fix it, people will often but not always vote for the result they want not the feels they want. You can argue that Trumpy rhetoric is about feels, and that's true. But the reason I said this is a good example is because the magnitude of the problem itself made it impossible to dismiss as stirred up fear mongering. + Show Spoiler +I mean Trump had a willingness to try and solve the stolen election ‘problem’ too
If the problem is as bad as it is, here’s a handy two-point plan.
1. The Dems aren’t fixing the problem
2. The Dems have lied about things like the border being secure.
One can keep ramming that home and win on it.
Trump instead lies blatantly in service of a cause he can probably win on anyway.
And these lies can have pretty considerable consequences. I’ve seen them in my own country, although thankfully in this instance we didn’t see anti-Haitian pogroms or what have you.
It is poisonous, demagogic shite and should not be entertained, not one iota.
I say this for my own ‘side’ too as it were. We all know politicians lie or spin things, but if the Trumpian standard becomes some future baseline my god that will be a clusterfuck and a half. That ship has sailed. That's what 'have you seen the other guys' was. Remember when people were competing to come up with the most absurd alternative they would still vote for over Trump? Making Trump the new baseline has been a bipartisan effort. I’m not really sure how it’s been a bipartisan thing myself + Show Spoiler +As per my point, and more directed at folks like Intro who lean conservative.
If the ‘Post-Truth’ world becomes the new normal, and isn’t some aberrant phase, the left are going to do it too at some stage.
I personally don’t think it’s a desirable precedent full stop, I think truth or at least an attempt at it is kinda pretty fucking important as a base principle. In a purely partisan pragmatic sense, don’t employ weapons you aren’t comfortable that your opponents may also wield. Yes you are (besides me just telling you). Democrats made it abundantly clear they could/would support anything that cleared the baseline represented by Trump.
I wouldn’t disagree with that assessment, but neither would I class it as bipartisan myself.
|
On April 16 2026 01:50 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2026 01:27 Introvert wrote:On April 16 2026 00:34 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 04:42 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 03:33 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 02:05 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 23:41 Introvert wrote:
The "eating cats and dogs" thing is a good example actually. Many people might think it was rediculous and a lie, but those same voters know they hated the border crisis and mass uncontrolled migration. They were not satisfied by the current administration pretending for years there was not a problem and then trying to blame Trump for it. It's not giving the voters too much credit, it is giving them too little. And it is giving a pass to your own sides objective policy and poltical failures and instead blaming opposing propaganda The thing is, this becomes rather circular. People are only so concerned in the first place because of a rather charged invective in the first place that is at best hyperbolic, at worst dishonest. There isn’t a particularly sober debate on this topic to begin with. You take a legitimate issue, ramp it up to the nth degree, and then well ‘it’s not being sorted’ spirals into more and more bullshit with ire increasingly out of kilter with reality becoming justification for more and more mendacity. If the nuts and bolts of the issue are sufficiently concerning already, one doesn’t need to say, claim Haitians are eating family pets or whatever to pick some crazy hypothetical that would never happen. Such patterns tend to characterise immigration discourse all over the shop. Now, I will say that unlike quite a few other places, the US does have a metric fuckton of illegal immigration, has done for quite a while, that can is seemingly perpetually kicked down the road, and it is something that concerns a lot of people. There’s plenty of legitimate material to slam the record on this of Democrats if one is so inclined. As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice. It wasn’t an exaggeration it was a complete fabrication. The circle I was referring to is perpetually escalating anti-immigrant rhetoric, with the justification that grievances aren’t being addressed so let’s up the ante. To the point that people end up angry about things that aren’t actually true, so then we ‘NEED’ to act because people are so riled up about the lies. If x issue is sufficiently motivating as it stands, in reality, and the other lot are blocking resolution, you can just perpetually slam the other lot It’s also grossly irresponsible to boot. Look I haven’t had my goals of a more equitable distribution of wealth met, it’s frustrating. Ergo it’s totally fine for me to say that the rich are operating an elaborate network where they’re abducting children to harvest their organs for eternal youth. We have to seize their wealth to stop this outrage! It’s an expensive racket after all. Totally defensible too given your own stated rationale. I think there’s a legitimate problem that’s not being dealt with, the other side is lying in my view so I can just make stuff up to try and force the issue. Why do you come out and bat for this kind of bollocks? I’ve even laid it out for you on almost innumerable occasions. You can simply do this: 1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. 2. The President of the US banging on about Haitians eating family pets is disgraceful And you can just swap out point two for whatever the issue is being discussed and people will still potentially disagree, but it’ll be on the terms of whatever the actual issue disagreement is. If you were some MAGA diehard with a nice print of Trump as Jesus hanging on your wall it would make sense, but according to you you have no particular love for the man. For the record I think policy in general in this specific area is a disaster. To a degree I’d consider technically bipartisan, as the two parties in combination can’t get shit done and come up with something sensible and actionable. But the Dems specifically as well. In both optics and to my particular sensibilities. Sanctuary cities, ‘no human is illegal’ and all that craic is all well and good if you have other mechanisms but oh, you don’t. It’s political poison for even people with very moderate views on immigration. Secondly, I think it encourages the expansion of an easily exploitable underclass who lack fundamental rights. Not very progressive stuff there. Or put another way, if you can’t get amnesties, paths to citizenship etc done, which would be my preference, then don’t further encourage a growth in that problem. I’m broad brushing a bit here obviously, but I think some of the approach and rhetoric is daft in this domain. Even if they don’t ultimately deliver no governing party I’m aware of in Europe goes in this particular kind of direction. Lots of words to totally misread the point of what i said. I didn't defend his rhetoric, I defended the voters preferring him on border security to Biden/Kamala. Having a secure border is related to, but still a different issue than what to do when people are here. It's the entire reason we have to figure that out in the first place. Voters preferred Trump on policy, which is exactly how we want voters deciding. Rhetoric of course, rather famously known for not changing opinions, or altering positions. Not studied in various forms for that reason for millennia… No you didn’t defend his rhetoric, just kinda danced around it and equivocated a bit. I don’t believe you think we live in a magical world where policy preferences aren’t somewhat shaped by public rhetoric and the media sphere, and somewhat spring from the ether. But you do seem to argue that way, that Trump’s rhetoric can be decoupled from policy entirely, and there’s not a symbiotic link there. I mean not just Trump obviously, that’s just how politics in large nation-states works in general. If you’re arguing that the more bullshit end of the scale maybe doesn’t move the needle that much on this particular topic and many Americans already have strong convictions on desirable policy here, I mean yeah I’d agree there. On April 15 2026 06:09 dyhb wrote:On April 15 2026 04:42 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 03:33 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2026 02:05 WombaT wrote:On April 14 2026 23:41 Introvert wrote:
The "eating cats and dogs" thing is a good example actually. Many people might think it was rediculous and a lie, but those same voters know they hated the border crisis and mass uncontrolled migration. They were not satisfied by the current administration pretending for years there was not a problem and then trying to blame Trump for it. It's not giving the voters too much credit, it is giving them too little. And it is giving a pass to your own sides objective policy and poltical failures and instead blaming opposing propaganda The thing is, this becomes rather circular. People are only so concerned in the first place because of a rather charged invective in the first place that is at best hyperbolic, at worst dishonest. There isn’t a particularly sober debate on this topic to begin with. You take a legitimate issue, ramp it up to the nth degree, and then well ‘it’s not being sorted’ spirals into more and more bullshit with ire increasingly out of kilter with reality becoming justification for more and more mendacity. If the nuts and bolts of the issue are sufficiently concerning already, one doesn’t need to say, claim Haitians are eating family pets or whatever to pick some crazy hypothetical that would never happen. Such patterns tend to characterise immigration discourse all over the shop. Now, I will say that unlike quite a few other places, the US does have a metric fuckton of illegal immigration, has done for quite a while, that can is seemingly perpetually kicked down the road, and it is something that concerns a lot of people. There’s plenty of legitimate material to slam the record on this of Democrats if one is so inclined. As you say at the end, it is not circular, there was actually a huge problem even if Dems could only acknowledge it balatedly. The voters had to pick between one set of lies and they decided they preferred to guy who exaggerated a problem to an administration who tried to tell them it wasn't real. Entirely logical, defensible choice. It wasn’t an exaggeration it was a complete fabrication. The circle I was referring to is perpetually escalating anti-immigrant rhetoric, with the justification that grievances aren’t being addressed so let’s up the ante. To the point that people end up angry about things that aren’t actually true, so then we ‘NEED’ to act because people are so riled up about the lies. If x issue is sufficiently motivating as it stands, in reality, and the other lot are blocking resolution, you can just perpetually slam the other lot It’s also grossly irresponsible to boot. Look I haven’t had my goals of a more equitable distribution of wealth met, it’s frustrating. Ergo it’s totally fine for me to say that the rich are operating an elaborate network where they’re abducting children to harvest their organs for eternal youth. We have to seize their wealth to stop this outrage! It’s an expensive racket after all. Totally defensible too given your own stated rationale. I think there’s a legitimate problem that’s not being dealt with, the other side is lying in my view so I can just make stuff up to try and force the issue. Why do you come out and bat for this kind of bollocks? I’ve even laid it out for you on almost innumerable occasions. You can simply do this: 1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. 2. The President of the US banging on about Haitians eating family pets is disgraceful And you can just swap out point two for whatever the issue is being discussed and people will still potentially disagree, but it’ll be on the terms of whatever the actual issue disagreement is. If you were some MAGA diehard with a nice print of Trump as Jesus hanging on your wall it would make sense, but according to you you have no particular love for the man. For the record I think policy in general in this specific area is a disaster. To a degree I’d consider technically bipartisan, as the two parties in combination can’t get shit done and come up with something sensible and actionable. But the Dems specifically as well. In both optics and to my particular sensibilities. Sanctuary cities, ‘no human is illegal’ and all that craic is all well and good if you have other mechanisms but oh, you don’t. It’s political poison for even people with very moderate views on immigration. Secondly, I think it encourages the expansion of an easily exploitable underclass who lack fundamental rights. Not very progressive stuff there. Or put another way, if you can’t get amnesties, paths to citizenship etc done, which would be my preference, then don’t further encourage a growth in that problem. I’m broad brushing a bit here obviously, but I think some of the approach and rhetoric is daft in this domain. Even if they don’t ultimately deliver no governing party I’m aware of in Europe goes in this particular kind of direction. Lots of words to totally misread the point of what i said. I didn't defend his rhetoric, I defended the voters preferring him on border security to Biden/Kamala. Having a secure border is related to, but still a different issue than what to do when people are here. It's the entire reason we have to figure that out in the first place. Voters preferred Trump on policy, which is exactly how we want voters deciding. On April 15 2026 04:29 WombaT wrote:
You can simply do this:
1. I think Democratic policy in this area is shit. In the middle of the ramble, this is basically agreement couched in all the other baggage. Voters can discern bad policy/policy results, and make a vote on that decision, essentially giving the other team their shot to do a better job. The free association exercise of everything else that must be said while admitting to the basic point is just a style. It’s not something I disagreed with to begin with. How are they discerning that? It’s a complex auld world out there as it is, the more bullshit out there the harder it becomes. Hence I think it’s important that say, the President of the US just completely bullshitting is nae summat that should be tolerated or handwaved away. I danced around nothing. But because my post didn't contain the required ritual denunciation you think I did. You understood my point but decided for whatever reason to, quite frankly, ramble and rant first, something apprently becoming a habit around here. My point was very straightforward and I'm glad you agree. When given a choice between someone who makes stuff up but has a credible claim to the willingness and ability to solve the problem, and someone who uses nice rhetoric but still lies ("border is secure") and shows no desire to fix it, people will often but not always vote for the result they want not the feels they want. You can argue that Trumpy rhetoric is about feels, and that's true. But the reason I said this is a good example is because the magnitude of the problem itself made it impossible to dismiss as stirred up fear mongering. I mean Trump had a willingness to try and solve the stolen election ‘problem’ too If the problem is as bad as it is, here’s a handy two-point plan. 1. The Dems aren’t fixing the problem 2. The Dems have lied about things like the border being secure. One can keep ramming that home and win on it. Trump instead lies blatantly in service of a cause he can probably win on anyway. And these lies can have pretty considerable consequences. I’ve seen them in my own country, although thankfully in this instance we didn’t see anti-Haitian pogroms or what have you. It is poisonous, demagogic shite and should not be entertained, not one iota. I say this for my own ‘side’ too as it were. We all know politicians lie or spin things, but if the Trumpian standard becomes some future baseline my god that will be a clusterfuck and a half.
Trump not *needing* to go to 11 on eveything is something I have pointed out many times but have realized is not going to change. He also way over does good news too. He calls people the greatest, or the worst, all time. I think the next president, either Vance or a dem will not be coarse in the way he is, so there is that. Although some dem politicians have developed a habit of dropping F-bombs to show how super serious they are, so not eveything will change.
But you can not say insane sounding things and still lie ("border is secure" again comes to mind. Also maybe the biggest whopper of the last two decades "if you like your doctor you csn keep your doctor"). Or you can be like Newsom who lies just as easily as Trump does, and is just as capable of changing his mind based on who he is speaking too. Just because he doesn't say "they are eating cats and dogs" doesn't mean it can't be as destructive. Imo it's the content more than the delivery although so much of politics is delivery.
|
|
|
On April 16 2026 02:30 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2026 01:46 dyhb wrote:
Click the link and stop dodging if you love citing the example. Sure, if you insist: A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood. When I said click the link, I meant read the questions you dodged at the link and not make up ones not found there. There were only two, and much more basic than interpreting legal distinctions.
|
On April 16 2026 00:31 LightSpectra wrote:
A trial by jury in a court of law finding Trump to have raped someone required more evidence, objectively, than Swalwell resigning from Congress and a gubernatorial election because of accusations made outside of a court of law. And you know what? He was right to resign. I hope he's indicted, convicted, and imprisoned. Trump is still an adjudicated rapist and he's still blocking release of millions of Epstein files he swore he'd release.
The point was not hard to understand it's that resigning immediately and going "I'm sorry" is different than "This whole system's out of order" and flipping a table in terms of how it affects people's priors about how they lean towards you being guilty.
I personally think Swalwell is clearly a sleaze and clearly not a rapist and as different people react differently to pressure I wouldn't hold his reaction against him as dyhb might.
That said you're now saying you hope Swalwell is convicted after all he did was resign, and you said that resigning is something which required LESS evidence than Trump not being convicted took. You shouldn't want him to be convicted on such flimsy grounds if you have no high standard to show he's guilty. You should want him not to be convicted because you should want him not to be guilty. You shouldn't be hoping for Swalwell to be a rapist. You shouldn't want it to have been possible for a Democrat rapist to be in the House for years and only have the shocking truth come out once he starts to look weak in a governor's race and someone wants him out.
|
On April 15 2026 19:11 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 07:32 Fleetfeet wrote:
It's trivial to think of examples of myself in my own personal life exhibiting sexism, be it misgendering a female character in a game because male is the default (I did this literally last night many times) Was she particularly hurt and did you apologize or how did you rectify this? That isn't sexism. Do you think men are better than women and is thinking male characters are better than female characters a manifestation of that?
Thanks for asking!
Yes, there was a female present who pointed out (and rightly so) that 'male' is the norm in gaming spaces, and referring to female characters as male in that space contributes to 'othering' non-males in male spaces.
It is sexist to default to an entity being male in that scenario. It's statistically probable and extremely minor, wasn't likely to lead to anyone crying or dying, but there's absolutely no value in me misgendering a character so even an extremely minor negative seems like reason enough to not do that. It's also literally sexist on account of literally being me taking an action based on an implicit bias towards gender.
I hope you take this education to heart, though you tend to run around actively avoiding truth so I'm not holding out hope.
|
On April 16 2026 04:16 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2026 00:31 LightSpectra wrote:
A trial by jury in a court of law finding Trump to have raped someone required more evidence, objectively, than Swalwell resigning from Congress and a gubernatorial election because of accusations made outside of a court of law. And you know what? He was right to resign. I hope he's indicted, convicted, and imprisoned. Trump is still an adjudicated rapist and he's still blocking release of millions of Epstein files he swore he'd release. The point was not hard to understand it's that resigning immediately and going "I'm sorry" is different than "This whole system's out of order" and flipping a table in terms of how it affects people's priors about how they lean towards you being guilty. I personally think Swalwell is clearly a sleaze and clearly not a rapist and as different people react differently to pressure I wouldn't hold his reaction against him as dyhb might. That said you're now saying you hope Swalwell is convicted after all he did was resign, and you said that resigning is something which required LESS evidence than Trump not being convicted took. You shouldn't want him to be convicted on such flimsy grounds if you have no high standard to show he's guilty. You should want him not to be convicted because you should want him not to be guilty. You shouldn't be hoping for Swalwell to be a rapist. You shouldn't want it to have been possible for a Democrat rapist to be in the House for years and only have the shocking truth come out once he starts to look weak in a governor's race and someone wants him out.
Horrible opinion from a horrible person, especially considering your justification for why we need secret police and detention camps to combat illegal immigration is because some of them are rapists. Why don't you apply that logic there, too? Just believe in your heart that no illegal immigrants have ever raped anyone and voila, they're innocent.
|
On April 16 2026 00:56 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 23:09 JimmyJRaynor wrote:How is the excursion/incursion/police action in Iran impacting the every day lives of every day Americans? Welp, https://www.livenowfox.com/news/inflation-2026-gas-prices-drove-march-numbers-up-levels-not-seen-years.ampThe 21% increase in gas prices in March 2026 is the biggest jump in 1 month since 1967. Gasoline costs went up more than 21% since February many countries are getting hit a lot harder than this. On April 15 2026 21:18 Vivax wrote:
There‘s not really consensus on what is defined as racist or sexist. Some really misapply the definition.
Everyone has own group bias. meh. some conflate that into racism. Sometimes, it is racism or sexism. Sometimes, it is own group bias. It is hard to tell what someone is thinking. Own group bias has survival value. Dunno how it’s going worldwide, we’ve just had our first fuel protests over here, it’s already starting to bite hard in certain industries and professions. At least this first wave seemed to be mostly farmers and people like taxi drivers, i.e. the first links in the chain hit by fuel rises. I know myself and my partner are planning around travel expenses in a way we didn’t have to prior to this. New mortgage and some excess private healthcare still left enough in the kitty to not really consider that before. Petrol being what it is It hasn’t lasted long enough to really be being noticeably passed on down the line in terms of inflationary prices across the board, i imagine if this stretches along and that starts happening people will start getting really pissed. A frustrating aspect of this, that I’m already seeing is a bunch of that anger is already being directed at our national and local government for not stepping in and fixing it. The longer this goes on, the more that anger grows, oh and cool look we’ve the right populist Reform party who were already trending even before this waiting in the wings. Thanks Donald, thanks a fucking bunch lad. I’m not an economist, nor especially economically literate as some here are. It strikes me that various petroleum products fuel well, basically the entire economy. It doesn’t strike me as something you can effectively subsidise or cap prices on for any length of time without incurring a gigantic hole in your budget right? I mean you can do a lot in extremis, as we’ve seen with war economies or post-2008, or during Covid. Is this an extreme enough scenario though? At least in the UK, and I’m plenty critical of our current government in how and where, but they’ve been pretty open in a key goal of theirs being balancing budgets and trying to plug historical holes.
Canadian PM Carney just temporarily suspended a fuel tax to keep gas and other prices down.
I have no idea what platform the Conservatives can run on with the Liberal Prime Minister using every pillar of their policy initiatives. 
|
On April 16 2026 04:17 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2026 19:11 oBlade wrote:On April 15 2026 07:32 Fleetfeet wrote:
It's trivial to think of examples of myself in my own personal life exhibiting sexism, be it misgendering a female character in a game because male is the default (I did this literally last night many times) Was she particularly hurt and did you apologize or how did you rectify this? That isn't sexism. Do you think men are better than women and is thinking male characters are better than female characters a manifestation of that? Thanks for asking! Yes, there was a female present who pointed out (and rightly so) that 'male' is the norm in gaming spaces, and referring to female characters as male in that space contributes to 'othering' non-males in male spaces. It is sexist to default to an entity being male in that scenario. It's statistically probable and extremely minor, wasn't likely to lead to anyone crying or dying, but there's absolutely no value in me misgendering a character so even an extremely minor negative seems like reason enough to not do that. It's also literally sexist on account of literally being me taking an action based on an implicit bias towards gender. I hope you take this education to heart, though you tend to run around actively avoiding truth so I'm not holding out hope.
I can't unthink feetfleet now.
I liked the anecdote about a man and his son getting in an accident and then the surgeon at the operating table saying they can't do it because it's their son. Or at least it was something like that because most people think of a male when they first think of a surgeon so they take a while to realize it's the mother who's the surgeon.
|
the US Navy announced they blocked off all of Iran's ports and declared "maritime superiority". Hours later Trump said he is permanently opening the Strait.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/donald-trump-xi-jinping-china-iran-war-strait-hormuz-b2958209.html
Reporter JimmyJRaynor at the White House: "Mr. President, is the strait of hormuz open or closed to all ships"
Donald Trump: "well, its both"
On April 16 2026 04:37 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2026 04:16 oBlade wrote:On April 16 2026 00:31 LightSpectra wrote:
A trial by jury in a court of law finding Trump to have raped someone required more evidence, objectively, than Swalwell resigning from Congress and a gubernatorial election because of accusations made outside of a court of law. And you know what? He was right to resign. I hope he's indicted, convicted, and imprisoned. Trump is still an adjudicated rapist and he's still blocking release of millions of Epstein files he swore he'd release. The point was not hard to understand it's that resigning immediately and going "I'm sorry" is different than "This whole system's out of order" and flipping a table in terms of how it affects people's priors about how they lean towards you being guilty. I personally think Swalwell is clearly a sleaze and clearly not a rapist and as different people react differently to pressure I wouldn't hold his reaction against him as dyhb might. That said you're now saying you hope Swalwell is convicted after all he did was resign, and you said that resigning is something which required LESS evidence than Trump not being convicted took. You shouldn't want him to be convicted on such flimsy grounds if you have no high standard to show he's guilty. You should want him not to be convicted because you should want him not to be guilty. You shouldn't be hoping for Swalwell to be a rapist. You shouldn't want it to have been possible for a Democrat rapist to be in the House for years and only have the shocking truth come out once he starts to look weak in a governor's race and someone wants him out. Horrible opinion from a horrible person, especially considering your justification for why we need secret police and detention camps to combat illegal immigration is because some of them are rapists. Why don't you apply that logic there, too? Just believe in your heart that no illegal immigrants have ever raped anyone and voila, they're innocent.
they are not "secret police".
Kristi Noem is gone and that Beavis and Butthead Gym Teacher guy that was running things in Minnesota got re-assigned. If this were a real "secret police" these two clowns would still be in their current positions.
ICE
(a) Operates under laws
(2) Courts can intervene
(bronze) Mission is law enforcement, not political repression
(iv)Exists within a democratic system
The Gestapo and NKVD are secret police. ICE ... not so much. It doesn't help though when Kristi Noem comes out and claims Pretti is a domestic terrorist after zero investigation time. So I can see why people like to go over board and claim the "US Secret Police Are Genociding All Protesters". However, the exaggeration is so bad it hurts their complaints.Massive exaggeration does not help them .. they should stop it. I think Pretti was prolly murdered.. but an investigation and trial needs to happen to say for certain.
People instantly declaring an ICE Officer committed 1st degree murder that day are as bad as Noem instantly declaring Pretti was a domestic terrorist.
On several occasions I've heard Trump yap/tweet about "swift justice". A president should not say stuff like that because shotgun justice is not justice.
|
On April 16 2026 01:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think part of what both Intro and Wombat are getting at is:
If I say there are too many calories in fast food and I prefer not to be obese. Who should I be mad at for still being fat?
The Democrats
|
On April 16 2026 12:36 Turbovolver wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2026 01:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think part of what both Intro and Wombat are getting at is:
If I say there are too many calories in fast food and I prefer not to be obese. Who should I be mad at for still being fat? The Democrats
Brilliant, you should run for office
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
