|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 20 2026 07:13 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 07:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2026 06:58 Simberto wrote:On May 20 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 04:49 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 04:03 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 02:18 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
two POTUS appointees of different agencies agreeing to give a billion dollars to the POTUS is just hilariously obvious On May 20 2026 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
gaslighting The problem is by the end of 2028 when Trump has never gotten a dime from this fund, you're not going to remember how wrong you were now. But in the interim 2 years every time Trump so much as stubs his toe you'll be going "This is exactly like how he gave himself $1B through the DOJ D-days ago" with your entire ideology leaning on a load-bearing untruth that didn't and isn't going to happen. Translation: after this blatant embezzlement falls out of the news cycle because the next blatant act of corruption takes its spot, conservatives like you will pretend it never happened. Oh believe me I'll be calling for impeachment the minute there's proof a president pocketed a BILLION DOLLARS from the Department of Justice. Yep, I'm sure that'll be the thing that crosses the line for you. Not the child rape or violent insurrection or losing a war against Iran or appointing incompetent alcoholics to critical positions overseeing national security, but the sixteenth or seventeenth time when Trump siphons taxpayer dollars into his own accounts. Violent insurrection acquitted luckily. Child rape is open if you could prove it. There's no precedent that indicates "losing wars" is a high crime/misdemeanor subject to impeachment, at any rate the war needs to be a bit more over to make such an assessment. Appointing incompetent alcoholics would be a case of proving it... and then impeaching the incompetent alcoholic. On May 20 2026 03:57 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 03:41 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 03:35 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
Translation: after this blatant embezzlement falls out of the news cycle because the next blatant act of corruption takes its spot, conservatives like you will pretend it never happened. Oh believe me I'll be calling for impeachment the minute there's proof a president pocketed a BILLION DOLLARS from the Department of Justice. On May 20 2026 02:57 Billyboy wrote:[quote] + Show Spoiler +What are you talking about, look at this list of republican priorities, I’m sure they all still care and expect them.
Doge checks
Tariff checks
Greenland hospital boat
10% app credit cards
1500% cheaper drugs
2 dollar gas
Epstein files
Reopening the Hormuz straight, that is open or closed multiple times daily depending on who you talk to (closed to most actual ships since the war that’s not a war mind you)
Cheaper groceries
Ballroom funded by donors
Wall paid for by Mexico
Those are all still coming for sure, and many more of the promises, better than you even ever imagined. Don’t worry so much.
Oblade, you are up to date and plugged in, mind giving LS a quick update on each and when he can expect them completed? Those priorities sound great the way you sell them. Plugged in, gotcha, yeah I just texted Stephen Miller and he said unless Democrats stop blocking those great ideas you promoted, you'll have to wait until Trump's third term. Take it with a grain of salt though you know how he gets. I get you like them, it’s the snake oil you bought. The crazy part is you keep buying it. Oh you're actually against cheaper groceries, free ballrooms, free walls, cheaper drugs, 2 dollar gas, Greenland hospital ships (?), 10% app credit cards (?), stimulus from reducing government waste, and stimulus from punishing companies that undercut America? Don't I have egg on my face... I didn't realize those were actually bad. On May 20 2026 03:35 Billyboy wrote:
How have the Dems blocked them when you control all levels of government and the judiciary?
You severely overestimate my power. No I’m for most of those things. Just if I was promised them all and it didn’t happen, I would be mad at the people who promised it, not their rivals. And I’d be extra mad if they were all getting themselves rich well I was paying more. But I don’t want to be a peasant to an emperor. So my mindset is impossible for you understand. I’m also not so stupid to believe the next promises. Or dumb enough to believe 1500% decreases in drug costs, other people paying for stuff or most of these vague promises without a plan. You're for most of those things? You spend a lot of time pushing Democrats to team up on this rhetoric, hold some Republican feet to the fire, and make things happen, right? Maybe volunteer their detailed plans for him and everyone to adopt. As a voting American. That'd be a productive activity. Don't be mad the wall wasn't built, be glad we didn't end up needing it. The drug costs one is a great litmus test. Normal people go "Oh obviously he's just using the original price before elevation as the baseline for calculating because he loves big sounding numbers and wants any excuse in the world to use as exaggerated sounding figures as possible," get it in 2 seconds, and move on. Then there's you... you point out obviously nothing can decrease more than 100% because then it would be negative and a price can't just be negative, and it's a law you MUST use the EXACT current price as a baseline when calculating a decrease, which means Trump didn't choose a different baseline, that would be against the rules, and on the contrary you're a math genius towering above him, and you bring this up in... the middle of a conversation about the DOJ adjudicating settlement payouts for claims against the government. How does that particular math work? Let's aim for a trumpian 1000% decrease. Say the current price is 100 dollars. What number would that trumpian decrease be? Like, if I'm using a baseline of say 90 dollars, what is the final number that I'm arriving at? I think i got this one. You use increases in reverse. So basically, you are looking at what starting number would mean a 1000% increase to get where you are at the beginning, and if you reduce the price to that number, that is a 1000% decrease in TrumpMath. However, you also need to be bad at maths. So in this case, i say if you drop the price from 100 dollars to 10 dollars, that is a TrumpMath decrease of 1000%. But isn't that a 90% discount / decrease / drop? 90% of $100 is being removed from the original price, leaving just $10? Only in Nerdmath for stupid liberals. In TrumpMath for smart real-life people, it is a 1000% decrease. Really i think we ought to teach the controversy here.
On May 20 2026 07:15 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 07:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2026 06:58 Simberto wrote:On May 20 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 04:49 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 04:03 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 02:18 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
two POTUS appointees of different agencies agreeing to give a billion dollars to the POTUS is just hilariously obvious On May 20 2026 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
gaslighting The problem is by the end of 2028 when Trump has never gotten a dime from this fund, you're not going to remember how wrong you were now. But in the interim 2 years every time Trump so much as stubs his toe you'll be going "This is exactly like how he gave himself $1B through the DOJ D-days ago" with your entire ideology leaning on a load-bearing untruth that didn't and isn't going to happen. Translation: after this blatant embezzlement falls out of the news cycle because the next blatant act of corruption takes its spot, conservatives like you will pretend it never happened. Oh believe me I'll be calling for impeachment the minute there's proof a president pocketed a BILLION DOLLARS from the Department of Justice. Yep, I'm sure that'll be the thing that crosses the line for you. Not the child rape or violent insurrection or losing a war against Iran or appointing incompetent alcoholics to critical positions overseeing national security, but the sixteenth or seventeenth time when Trump siphons taxpayer dollars into his own accounts. Violent insurrection acquitted luckily. Child rape is open if you could prove it. There's no precedent that indicates "losing wars" is a high crime/misdemeanor subject to impeachment, at any rate the war needs to be a bit more over to make such an assessment. Appointing incompetent alcoholics would be a case of proving it... and then impeaching the incompetent alcoholic. On May 20 2026 03:57 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 03:41 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 03:35 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
Translation: after this blatant embezzlement falls out of the news cycle because the next blatant act of corruption takes its spot, conservatives like you will pretend it never happened. Oh believe me I'll be calling for impeachment the minute there's proof a president pocketed a BILLION DOLLARS from the Department of Justice. On May 20 2026 02:57 Billyboy wrote:[quote] + Show Spoiler +What are you talking about, look at this list of republican priorities, I’m sure they all still care and expect them.
Doge checks
Tariff checks
Greenland hospital boat
10% app credit cards
1500% cheaper drugs
2 dollar gas
Epstein files
Reopening the Hormuz straight, that is open or closed multiple times daily depending on who you talk to (closed to most actual ships since the war that’s not a war mind you)
Cheaper groceries
Ballroom funded by donors
Wall paid for by Mexico
Those are all still coming for sure, and many more of the promises, better than you even ever imagined. Don’t worry so much.
Oblade, you are up to date and plugged in, mind giving LS a quick update on each and when he can expect them completed? Those priorities sound great the way you sell them. Plugged in, gotcha, yeah I just texted Stephen Miller and he said unless Democrats stop blocking those great ideas you promoted, you'll have to wait until Trump's third term. Take it with a grain of salt though you know how he gets. I get you like them, it’s the snake oil you bought. The crazy part is you keep buying it. Oh you're actually against cheaper groceries, free ballrooms, free walls, cheaper drugs, 2 dollar gas, Greenland hospital ships (?), 10% app credit cards (?), stimulus from reducing government waste, and stimulus from punishing companies that undercut America? Don't I have egg on my face... I didn't realize those were actually bad. On May 20 2026 03:35 Billyboy wrote:
How have the Dems blocked them when you control all levels of government and the judiciary?
You severely overestimate my power. No I’m for most of those things. Just if I was promised them all and it didn’t happen, I would be mad at the people who promised it, not their rivals. And I’d be extra mad if they were all getting themselves rich well I was paying more. But I don’t want to be a peasant to an emperor. So my mindset is impossible for you understand. I’m also not so stupid to believe the next promises. Or dumb enough to believe 1500% decreases in drug costs, other people paying for stuff or most of these vague promises without a plan. You're for most of those things? You spend a lot of time pushing Democrats to team up on this rhetoric, hold some Republican feet to the fire, and make things happen, right? Maybe volunteer their detailed plans for him and everyone to adopt. As a voting American. That'd be a productive activity. Don't be mad the wall wasn't built, be glad we didn't end up needing it. The drug costs one is a great litmus test. Normal people go "Oh obviously he's just using the original price before elevation as the baseline for calculating because he loves big sounding numbers and wants any excuse in the world to use as exaggerated sounding figures as possible," get it in 2 seconds, and move on. Then there's you... you point out obviously nothing can decrease more than 100% because then it would be negative and a price can't just be negative, and it's a law you MUST use the EXACT current price as a baseline when calculating a decrease, which means Trump didn't choose a different baseline, that would be against the rules, and on the contrary you're a math genius towering above him, and you bring this up in... the middle of a conversation about the DOJ adjudicating settlement payouts for claims against the government. How does that particular math work? Let's aim for a trumpian 1000% decrease. Say the current price is 100 dollars. What number would that trumpian decrease be? Like, if I'm using a baseline of say 90 dollars, what is the final number that I'm arriving at? I think i got this one. You use increases in reverse. So basically, you are looking at what starting number would mean a 1000% increase to get where you are at the beginning, and if you reduce the price to that number, that is a 1000% decrease in TrumpMath. However, you also need to be bad at maths. So in this case, i say if you drop the price from 100 dollars to 10 dollars, that is a TrumpMath decrease of 1000%. But isn't that a 90% discount / decrease / drop? 90% of $100 is being removed from the original price, leaving just $10? You're both wrong. Dropping from 100 to 10 is a 900% trump decrease. A 90% trump decrease from 100 would be going from 100 to 52.63.
You're both right! We're all right! Yay!
|
You can use MAGA math to make all of the victims on Epstein's island the age of consent too.
|
On May 20 2026 06:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2026 23:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2026 18:51 Velr wrote:
The staggering part is how sheepish the people just accept it. If we find out the next Democrat nominee is exactly as corrupt as Trump and the next Republican is too, people here and otherwise wouldn't hesitate to accept voting for/supporting someone equally corrupt. It basically boils down to any imaginable alternative being too scary. Yeah + Show Spoiler +but you’re complicit in genocide so there!
That's basically US "democracy" in a nutshell.
|
United States44245 Posts
On May 20 2026 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 06:22 KwarK wrote:On May 19 2026 23:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2026 18:51 Velr wrote:
The staggering part is how sheepish the people just accept it. If we find out the next Democrat nominee is exactly as corrupt as Trump and the next Republican is too, people here and otherwise wouldn't hesitate to accept voting for/supporting someone equally corrupt. It basically boils down to any imaginable alternative being too scary. Yeah + Show Spoiler +but you’re complicit in genocide so there! That's basically US "democracy" in a nutshell.
It’s you in a nutshell.
|
On May 20 2026 07:20 LightSpectra wrote:
You can use MAGA math to make all of the victims on Epstein's island the age of consent too.
When you really think about it, those 16yo girls would only need to increase their age by about 80% to be trump's age.
So it's really not that big of a deal.
|
On May 20 2026 07:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 06:22 KwarK wrote:On May 19 2026 23:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2026 18:51 Velr wrote:
The staggering part is how sheepish the people just accept it. If we find out the next Democrat nominee is exactly as corrupt as Trump and the next Republican is too, people here and otherwise wouldn't hesitate to accept voting for/supporting someone equally corrupt. It basically boils down to any imaginable alternative being too scary. Yeah + Show Spoiler +but you’re complicit in genocide so there! That's basically US "democracy" in a nutshell. It’s you in a nutshell.
I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam.
|
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
On May 20 2026 02:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 00:54 WombaT wrote:On May 20 2026 00:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 00:21 WombaT wrote:On May 19 2026 23:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2026 18:51 Velr wrote:
The staggering part is how sheepish the people just accept it. If we find out the next Democrat nominee is exactly as corrupt as Trump and the next Republican is too, people here and otherwise wouldn't hesitate to accept voting for/supporting someone equally corrupt. It basically boils down to any imaginable alternative being too scary. I mean this just doesn’t pass muster I don't even know what exactly you're attempting to disagree with? I'm pretty confident this is another one of those things where it's clearly true but uncomfortable for people to confront. It’s complete nonsense, as seen by innumerable centre left thru left politicians across the globe getting fucking hammered for impropriety of various kinds that doesn’t even approach Trump’s + Show Spoiler +I know you have to get your Dem’s BadTM quota in but this ain’t it. Okay. Are you trying to say they would hesitate before supporting them anyway or something else?
It’s a hypothetical, perhaps not if it came down to the crunch.
But nobody as brazenly corrupt, to the degree Trump is is getting anywhere near that particular shootout. They’ll long be weeded out by various factors, notably people not liking such shenanigans
More corrupt than ideal, or even pretty damn corrupt, sure that can sneak through, but not to Trumpian levels
|
On May 20 2026 07:49 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 02:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 00:54 WombaT wrote:On May 20 2026 00:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 00:21 WombaT wrote:On May 19 2026 23:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2026 18:51 Velr wrote:
The staggering part is how sheepish the people just accept it. If we find out the next Democrat nominee is exactly as corrupt as Trump and the next Republican is too, people here and otherwise wouldn't hesitate to accept voting for/supporting someone equally corrupt. It basically boils down to any imaginable alternative being too scary. I mean this just doesn’t pass muster I don't even know what exactly you're attempting to disagree with? I'm pretty confident this is another one of those things where it's clearly true but uncomfortable for people to confront. It’s complete nonsense, as seen by innumerable centre left thru left politicians across the globe getting fucking hammered for impropriety of various kinds that doesn’t even approach Trump’s + Show Spoiler +I know you have to get your Dem’s BadTM quota in but this ain’t it. Okay. Are you trying to say they would hesitate before supporting them anyway or something else? It’s a hypothetical, perhaps not if it came down to the crunch. + Show Spoiler +But nobody as brazenly corrupt, to the degree Trump is is getting anywhere near that particular shootout. They’ll long be weeded out by various factors, notably people not liking such shenanigans
More corrupt than ideal, or even pretty damn corrupt, sure that can sneak through, but not to Trumpian levels
What do you mean "perhaps"? The premise and point is that winning is more important than opposing your nominee if you know they are as corrupt as Trump, regardless of party.
Call it "sheepish", "pragmatic", "cynical", or whatever, but it is what people here and otherwise have made very clear they believe people should do.
|
United States44245 Posts
On May 20 2026 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 07:49 WombaT wrote:On May 20 2026 02:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 00:54 WombaT wrote:On May 20 2026 00:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 00:21 WombaT wrote:On May 19 2026 23:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2026 18:51 Velr wrote:
The staggering part is how sheepish the people just accept it. If we find out the next Democrat nominee is exactly as corrupt as Trump and the next Republican is too, people here and otherwise wouldn't hesitate to accept voting for/supporting someone equally corrupt. It basically boils down to any imaginable alternative being too scary. I mean this just doesn’t pass muster I don't even know what exactly you're attempting to disagree with? I'm pretty confident this is another one of those things where it's clearly true but uncomfortable for people to confront. It’s complete nonsense, as seen by innumerable centre left thru left politicians across the globe getting fucking hammered for impropriety of various kinds that doesn’t even approach Trump’s + Show Spoiler +I know you have to get your Dem’s BadTM quota in but this ain’t it. Okay. Are you trying to say they would hesitate before supporting them anyway or something else? It’s a hypothetical, perhaps not if it came down to the crunch. + Show Spoiler +But nobody as brazenly corrupt, to the degree Trump is is getting anywhere near that particular shootout. They’ll long be weeded out by various factors, notably people not liking such shenanigans
More corrupt than ideal, or even pretty damn corrupt, sure that can sneak through, but not to Trumpian levels What do you mean "perhaps"? The premise and point is that winning is more important than opposing your nominee if you know they are as corrupt as Trump, regardless of party. Call it "sheepish", "pragmatic", "cynical", or whatever, but it is what people here and otherwise have made very clear they believe people should do.
You don't have even a basic understanding of the position you're strawmanning. Party is irrelevant, nobody here is "vote blue no matter who".
|
On May 20 2026 08:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 07:49 WombaT wrote:On May 20 2026 02:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 00:54 WombaT wrote:On May 20 2026 00:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 00:21 WombaT wrote:On May 19 2026 23:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2026 18:51 Velr wrote:
The staggering part is how sheepish the people just accept it. If we find out the next Democrat nominee is exactly as corrupt as Trump and the next Republican is too, people here and otherwise wouldn't hesitate to accept voting for/supporting someone equally corrupt. It basically boils down to any imaginable alternative being too scary. I mean this just doesn’t pass muster I don't even know what exactly you're attempting to disagree with? I'm pretty confident this is another one of those things where it's clearly true but uncomfortable for people to confront. It’s complete nonsense, as seen by innumerable centre left thru left politicians across the globe getting fucking hammered for impropriety of various kinds that doesn’t even approach Trump’s + Show Spoiler +I know you have to get your Dem’s BadTM quota in but this ain’t it. Okay. Are you trying to say they would hesitate before supporting them anyway or something else? It’s a hypothetical, perhaps not if it came down to the crunch. + Show Spoiler +But nobody as brazenly corrupt, to the degree Trump is is getting anywhere near that particular shootout. They’ll long be weeded out by various factors, notably people not liking such shenanigans
More corrupt than ideal, or even pretty damn corrupt, sure that can sneak through, but not to Trumpian levels What do you mean "perhaps"? The premise and point is that winning is more important than opposing your nominee if you know they are as corrupt as Trump, regardless of party. Call it "sheepish", "pragmatic", "cynical", or whatever, but it is what people here and otherwise have made very clear they believe people should do. You don't have even a basic understanding of the position you're strawmanning. Party is irrelevant, nobody here is "vote blue no matter who".
You're just struggling to understand and respond to what I said.
Though, to your misunderstanding, for all practical purposes everyone here is "vote blue no matter who" iirc there aren't any currently elected Republicans anyone could come up with they would even hypothetically vote for over any currently sitting Democrats.
I said: If we find out the next Democrat nominee is exactly as corrupt as Trump and the next Republican is too, people here and otherwise wouldn't hesitate to accept voting for/supporting someone equally corrupt.
There isn't anything inextricably disqualifying about Trump's corruption that would make supporting someone equally corrupt a nonstarter for someone regardless of party.
Wombat's point about Democrats having a better chance of screening someone like that out is accurate imo, but not in conflict with my original statement.
|
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
On May 20 2026 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 07:49 WombaT wrote:On May 20 2026 02:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 00:54 WombaT wrote:On May 20 2026 00:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 00:21 WombaT wrote:On May 19 2026 23:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2026 18:51 Velr wrote:
The staggering part is how sheepish the people just accept it. If we find out the next Democrat nominee is exactly as corrupt as Trump and the next Republican is too, people here and otherwise wouldn't hesitate to accept voting for/supporting someone equally corrupt. It basically boils down to any imaginable alternative being too scary. I mean this just doesn’t pass muster I don't even know what exactly you're attempting to disagree with? I'm pretty confident this is another one of those things where it's clearly true but uncomfortable for people to confront. It’s complete nonsense, as seen by innumerable centre left thru left politicians across the globe getting fucking hammered for impropriety of various kinds that doesn’t even approach Trump’s + Show Spoiler +I know you have to get your Dem’s BadTM quota in but this ain’t it. Okay. Are you trying to say they would hesitate before supporting them anyway or something else? It’s a hypothetical, perhaps not if it came down to the crunch. + Show Spoiler +But nobody as brazenly corrupt, to the degree Trump is is getting anywhere near that particular shootout. They’ll long be weeded out by various factors, notably people not liking such shenanigans
More corrupt than ideal, or even pretty damn corrupt, sure that can sneak through, but not to Trumpian levels What do you mean "perhaps"? The premise and point is that winning is more important than opposing your nominee if you know they are as corrupt as Trump, regardless of party. Call it "sheepish", "pragmatic", "cynical", or whatever, but it is what people here and otherwise have made very clear they believe people should do.
How do they become the nominee in the first place?
I mean we can talk hypothetical Dem Trump versus Real Trump or alternatively have a wee look around.
My only contention is that Trump is something of an outlier, and notably so in that his open corruption hasn’t rendered him unviable as a politician. A luxury not enjoyed by most other politicians of all sorts of stripes.
Trump’s probably done enough before finishing his breakfast in any given day to collapse a UK government in terms of scandal.
I mean there’s obviously plenty of corruption and cronyism to go around, most here aren’t naive to that, but the scale and half of it being out in the open isn’t especially common, folks tend to try to hide it. Trump on the other hand would ring your doorbell so that he can be sure you witness him shitting on your lawn.
There’s plenty to criticise without inventing hypothetical candidates who don’t exist, indeed I’d argue probably can’t exist in the current climate. Indeed, if such a candidate were viable on the ostensible left of the US’ two parties, the US would be even less fertile ground for genuine left wing politics than I already think it is
|
The only Republican in the House that supported releasing the Epstein files (before the discharge petition made it inevitable), Thomas Massie, unfortunately just lost his primary election. House Republicans will now be 100% in favor of covering up the crimes of the Epstein-Maxwell-Trump trafficking ring in the next Congress.
|
Josh Hawley was on my list until he found a way to fuck all of everything. Seemed at the very least sincere in some things.
|
Canada11594 Posts
Though, to your misunderstanding, for all practical purposes everyone here is "vote blue no matter who" iirc there aren't any currently elected Republicans anyone could come up with they would even hypothetically vote for over any currently sitting Democrats.
You have someone in mind?
I'll take a Rand Paul over a Fetterman (who the Jacobin once called a win for progressives) any day. But there's not too many to choose from as most real Republicans like Kinzinger are pushed out if they don't bow to messiah Trump. I fundamentally oppose Trump, so if presented with a politician who buries their conservative principles to parrot whatever Trump is saying, I oppose them too as it is one and the same to me.
Show me a Republican strong on Ukraine (which I don't even think Rand Paul is), willing to impeach Trump and his cronies, willing to push the Epstein Files even if it exposes the Dear Leader, and re-establish the Republicans as a conservative party rather than the Party of Trump and I would probably support them over Fetterman (who I expect will get primaried if he doesn't run as an independent or switch parties.) But if anyone shows a bit of spine like Massie, they are out. I don't see a Peter Magyar arising to save American conservatives from themselves, so it's probably up to the Democrats.
|
United States44245 Posts
On May 20 2026 09:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 08:36 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2026 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 07:49 WombaT wrote:On May 20 2026 02:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 00:54 WombaT wrote:On May 20 2026 00:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 00:21 WombaT wrote:On May 19 2026 23:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2026 18:51 Velr wrote:
The staggering part is how sheepish the people just accept it. If we find out the next Democrat nominee is exactly as corrupt as Trump and the next Republican is too, people here and otherwise wouldn't hesitate to accept voting for/supporting someone equally corrupt. It basically boils down to any imaginable alternative being too scary. I mean this just doesn’t pass muster I don't even know what exactly you're attempting to disagree with? I'm pretty confident this is another one of those things where it's clearly true but uncomfortable for people to confront. It’s complete nonsense, as seen by innumerable centre left thru left politicians across the globe getting fucking hammered for impropriety of various kinds that doesn’t even approach Trump’s + Show Spoiler +I know you have to get your Dem’s BadTM quota in but this ain’t it. Okay. Are you trying to say they would hesitate before supporting them anyway or something else? It’s a hypothetical, perhaps not if it came down to the crunch. + Show Spoiler +But nobody as brazenly corrupt, to the degree Trump is is getting anywhere near that particular shootout. They’ll long be weeded out by various factors, notably people not liking such shenanigans
More corrupt than ideal, or even pretty damn corrupt, sure that can sneak through, but not to Trumpian levels What do you mean "perhaps"? The premise and point is that winning is more important than opposing your nominee if you know they are as corrupt as Trump, regardless of party. Call it "sheepish", "pragmatic", "cynical", or whatever, but it is what people here and otherwise have made very clear they believe people should do. You don't have even a basic understanding of the position you're strawmanning. Party is irrelevant, nobody here is "vote blue no matter who". You're just struggling to understand and respond to what I said. Though, to your misunderstanding, for all practical purposes everyone here is "vote blue no matter who" iirc there aren't any currently elected Republicans anyone could come up with they would even hypothetically vote for over any currently sitting Democrats. I said: Show nested quote + If we find out the next Democrat nominee is exactly as corrupt as Trump and the next Republican is too, people here and otherwise wouldn't hesitate to accept voting for/supporting someone equally corrupt. There isn't anything inextricably disqualifying about Trump's corruption that would make supporting someone equally corrupt a nonstarter for someone regardless of party. Wombat's point about Democrats having a better chance of screening someone like that out is accurate imo, but not in conflict with my original statement.
If you’re not interested in understanding why your posts miss the mark every time then that’s on you. I’ve given you the information, I can’t make you accept it. But you’ll get nowhere with your strawman arguments until you acquire a basic understanding of what you’re trying to strawman.
|
On May 20 2026 06:58 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 04:49 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 04:03 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 02:18 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
two POTUS appointees of different agencies agreeing to give a billion dollars to the POTUS is just hilariously obvious On May 20 2026 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
gaslighting The problem is by the end of 2028 when Trump has never gotten a dime from this fund, you're not going to remember how wrong you were now. But in the interim 2 years every time Trump so much as stubs his toe you'll be going "This is exactly like how he gave himself $1B through the DOJ D-days ago" with your entire ideology leaning on a load-bearing untruth that didn't and isn't going to happen. Translation: after this blatant embezzlement falls out of the news cycle because the next blatant act of corruption takes its spot, conservatives like you will pretend it never happened. Oh believe me I'll be calling for impeachment the minute there's proof a president pocketed a BILLION DOLLARS from the Department of Justice. Yep, I'm sure that'll be the thing that crosses the line for you. Not the child rape or violent insurrection or losing a war against Iran or appointing incompetent alcoholics to critical positions overseeing national security, but the sixteenth or seventeenth time when Trump siphons taxpayer dollars into his own accounts. Violent insurrection acquitted luckily. Child rape is open if you could prove it. There's no precedent that indicates "losing wars" is a high crime/misdemeanor subject to impeachment, at any rate the war needs to be a bit more over to make such an assessment. Appointing incompetent alcoholics would be a case of proving it... and then impeaching the incompetent alcoholic. On May 20 2026 03:57 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 03:41 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 03:35 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 02:18 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
two POTUS appointees of different agencies agreeing to give a billion dollars to the POTUS is just hilariously obvious On May 20 2026 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
gaslighting The problem is by the end of 2028 when Trump has never gotten a dime from this fund, you're not going to remember how wrong you were now. But in the interim 2 years every time Trump so much as stubs his toe you'll be going "This is exactly like how he gave himself $1B through the DOJ D-days ago" with your entire ideology leaning on a load-bearing untruth that didn't and isn't going to happen. Translation: after this blatant embezzlement falls out of the news cycle because the next blatant act of corruption takes its spot, conservatives like you will pretend it never happened. Oh believe me I'll be calling for impeachment the minute there's proof a president pocketed a BILLION DOLLARS from the Department of Justice. On May 20 2026 02:57 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 02:18 oBlade wrote:
[quote][quote]
The problem is by the end of 2028 when Trump has never gotten a dime from this fund, you're not going to remember how wrong you were now. But in the interim 2 years every time Trump so much as stubs his toe you'll be going "This is exactly like how he gave himself $1B through the DOJ D-days ago" with your entire ideology leaning on a load-bearing untruth that didn't and isn't going to happen. Translation: after this blatant embezzlement falls out of the news cycle because the next blatant act of corruption takes its spot, conservatives like you will pretend it never happened. + Show Spoiler +What are you talking about, look at this list of republican priorities, I’m sure they all still care and expect them.
Doge checks
Tariff checks
Greenland hospital boat
10% app credit cards
1500% cheaper drugs
2 dollar gas
Epstein files
Reopening the Hormuz straight, that is open or closed multiple times daily depending on who you talk to (closed to most actual ships since the war that’s not a war mind you)
Cheaper groceries
Ballroom funded by donors
Wall paid for by Mexico
Those are all still coming for sure, and many more of the promises, better than you even ever imagined. Don’t worry so much.
Oblade, you are up to date and plugged in, mind giving LS a quick update on each and when he can expect them completed? Those priorities sound great the way you sell them. Plugged in, gotcha, yeah I just texted Stephen Miller and he said unless Democrats stop blocking those great ideas you promoted, you'll have to wait until Trump's third term. Take it with a grain of salt though you know how he gets. I get you like them, it’s the snake oil you bought. The crazy part is you keep buying it. Oh you're actually against cheaper groceries, free ballrooms, free walls, cheaper drugs, 2 dollar gas, Greenland hospital ships (?), 10% app credit cards (?), stimulus from reducing government waste, and stimulus from punishing companies that undercut America? Don't I have egg on my face... I didn't realize those were actually bad. On May 20 2026 03:35 Billyboy wrote:
How have the Dems blocked them when you control all levels of government and the judiciary?
You severely overestimate my power. No I’m for most of those things. Just if I was promised them all and it didn’t happen, I would be mad at the people who promised it, not their rivals. And I’d be extra mad if they were all getting themselves rich well I was paying more. But I don’t want to be a peasant to an emperor. So my mindset is impossible for you understand. I’m also not so stupid to believe the next promises. Or dumb enough to believe 1500% decreases in drug costs, other people paying for stuff or most of these vague promises without a plan. You're for most of those things? You spend a lot of time pushing Democrats to team up on this rhetoric, hold some Republican feet to the fire, and make things happen, right? Maybe volunteer their detailed plans for him and everyone to adopt. As a voting American. That'd be a productive activity. Don't be mad the wall wasn't built, be glad we didn't end up needing it. The drug costs one is a great litmus test. Normal people go "Oh obviously he's just using the original price before elevation as the baseline for calculating because he loves big sounding numbers and wants any excuse in the world to use as exaggerated sounding figures as possible," get it in 2 seconds, and move on. Then there's you... you point out obviously nothing can decrease more than 100% because then it would be negative and a price can't just be negative, and it's a law you MUST use the EXACT current price as a baseline when calculating a decrease, which means Trump didn't choose a different baseline, that would be against the rules, and on the contrary you're a math genius towering above him, and you bring this up in... the middle of a conversation about the DOJ adjudicating settlement payouts for claims against the government. How does that particular math work? Let's aim for a trumpian 1000% decrease. Say the current price is 100 dollars. What number would that trumpian decrease be? Like, if I'm using a baseline of say 90 dollars, what is the final number that I'm arriving at? I think i got this one. You use increases in reverse. So basically, you are looking at what starting number would mean a 1000% increase to get where you are at the beginning, and if you reduce the price to that number, that is a 1000% decrease in TrumpMath. However, you also need to be bad at maths. So in this case, i say if you drop the price from 100 dollars to 10 dollars, that is a TrumpMath decrease of 1000%. Because if you increase the price from $10 to $100, you increase it to a 1000% of the original price, which if you are bad at maths is the same as increasing it by 1000%. And of course, reversing that 1000% price increase must also be a 1000% price drop. This is how maths works if you never understood beyond 5th grade in school. And since we got a group in power who really hates anyone with any education or anyone who is smarter than them, they love this kind of shit. Because they know how stuff ought to work, and finally someone in power is also willing to tell those nerds how stuff is supposed to work in the real world. Now it is those university nerds who are bad at math, while the guys in the trailer park are right.
(final_price /initial_price)^-1 * 100, doesn't include baseline, it's just a rate of change that is defined backwards in time, a sort of "what will have been" the price type definition. oBlade explicitly mentioned that trump was using a different baseline so just wondering how that bit of math works, presumably so the rate of change is still defined as going forward in time, rather than backward.
|
Norway28876 Posts
On May 20 2026 09:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 08:36 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2026 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 07:49 WombaT wrote:On May 20 2026 02:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 00:54 WombaT wrote:On May 20 2026 00:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 00:21 WombaT wrote:On May 19 2026 23:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2026 18:51 Velr wrote:
The staggering part is how sheepish the people just accept it. If we find out the next Democrat nominee is exactly as corrupt as Trump and the next Republican is too, people here and otherwise wouldn't hesitate to accept voting for/supporting someone equally corrupt. It basically boils down to any imaginable alternative being too scary. I mean this just doesn’t pass muster I don't even know what exactly you're attempting to disagree with? I'm pretty confident this is another one of those things where it's clearly true but uncomfortable for people to confront. It’s complete nonsense, as seen by innumerable centre left thru left politicians across the globe getting fucking hammered for impropriety of various kinds that doesn’t even approach Trump’s + Show Spoiler +I know you have to get your Dem’s BadTM quota in but this ain’t it. Okay. Are you trying to say they would hesitate before supporting them anyway or something else? It’s a hypothetical, perhaps not if it came down to the crunch. + Show Spoiler +But nobody as brazenly corrupt, to the degree Trump is is getting anywhere near that particular shootout. They’ll long be weeded out by various factors, notably people not liking such shenanigans
More corrupt than ideal, or even pretty damn corrupt, sure that can sneak through, but not to Trumpian levels What do you mean "perhaps"? The premise and point is that winning is more important than opposing your nominee if you know they are as corrupt as Trump, regardless of party. Call it "sheepish", "pragmatic", "cynical", or whatever, but it is what people here and otherwise have made very clear they believe people should do. You don't have even a basic understanding of the position you're strawmanning. Party is irrelevant, nobody here is "vote blue no matter who". You're just struggling to understand and respond to what I said. Though, to your misunderstanding, for all practical purposes everyone here is "vote blue no matter who" iirc there aren't any currently elected Republicans anyone could come up with they would even hypothetically vote for over any currently sitting Democrats. I said: Show nested quote + If we find out the next Democrat nominee is exactly as corrupt as Trump and the next Republican is too, people here and otherwise wouldn't hesitate to accept voting for/supporting someone equally corrupt. There isn't anything inextricably disqualifying about Trump's corruption that would make supporting someone equally corrupt a nonstarter for someone regardless of party. Wombat's point about Democrats having a better chance of screening someone like that out is accurate imo, but not in conflict with my original statement.
I think people's main contention with your argument is that it feels like a version of 'what if people identify as attack helicopters'. There isn't really a remote possibility that democrats are going to run with a candidate whose corruption (or moral depravity, or other x negative characteristic) is even remotely on the same scale of magnitude as that of Trump, so when you attack/question people for what they would probably do in a hypothetical scenario based on something they had said before, it feels disconnected from reality.
While I haven't really bothered investigating it, it is my impression that Pelosi is probably guilty of inside trading. I'd love to see her lose her spot to some other Democrat who isn't, but I'd still happily vote for her over any MAGA republican, because a) her crimes pale in comparison to those of Trump and b) her policies resonate more with me. Rather than try to give us some imaginary 'is as bad as Trump as a person but slightly better on politics', it'd be better if you operated in the real world. Alternatively, the issue is that you've already made the point (if we accept the lesser of two evils then we permit people to be really evil when the alternative is Trump) and people are tired of the various reiterations of it - and it's not a question of 'understanding' the argument.
I mean, personally, I think to some degree, it's a bit of an interesting thought experiment, like, 'would I vote for Bernie Sanders in the current political climate if he was proven guilty of having raped a 15 year old back in 1975 and I actually believed he was guilty' - but if I were to give an answer to that, it'd feel kinda fucked to have that answer being used as a stick to prod my head with as an indication of how I'd behave in a real situation if that situation were to arise, because how I answer a hypothetical is how I answer a hypothetical and while it can be a fun thought experiment, it's very possible that my actual answer changes if the hypothetical becomes reality and for that reason, basing discussions around reality is preferable.
|
On May 20 2026 14:06 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 06:58 Simberto wrote:On May 20 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 04:49 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 04:03 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 02:18 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
two POTUS appointees of different agencies agreeing to give a billion dollars to the POTUS is just hilariously obvious On May 20 2026 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
gaslighting The problem is by the end of 2028 when Trump has never gotten a dime from this fund, you're not going to remember how wrong you were now. But in the interim 2 years every time Trump so much as stubs his toe you'll be going "This is exactly like how he gave himself $1B through the DOJ D-days ago" with your entire ideology leaning on a load-bearing untruth that didn't and isn't going to happen. Translation: after this blatant embezzlement falls out of the news cycle because the next blatant act of corruption takes its spot, conservatives like you will pretend it never happened. Oh believe me I'll be calling for impeachment the minute there's proof a president pocketed a BILLION DOLLARS from the Department of Justice. Yep, I'm sure that'll be the thing that crosses the line for you. Not the child rape or violent insurrection or losing a war against Iran or appointing incompetent alcoholics to critical positions overseeing national security, but the sixteenth or seventeenth time when Trump siphons taxpayer dollars into his own accounts. Violent insurrection acquitted luckily. Child rape is open if you could prove it. There's no precedent that indicates "losing wars" is a high crime/misdemeanor subject to impeachment, at any rate the war needs to be a bit more over to make such an assessment. Appointing incompetent alcoholics would be a case of proving it... and then impeaching the incompetent alcoholic. On May 20 2026 03:57 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 03:41 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 03:35 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 02:18 oBlade wrote:
[quote][quote]
The problem is by the end of 2028 when Trump has never gotten a dime from this fund, you're not going to remember how wrong you were now. But in the interim 2 years every time Trump so much as stubs his toe you'll be going "This is exactly like how he gave himself $1B through the DOJ D-days ago" with your entire ideology leaning on a load-bearing untruth that didn't and isn't going to happen. Translation: after this blatant embezzlement falls out of the news cycle because the next blatant act of corruption takes its spot, conservatives like you will pretend it never happened. Oh believe me I'll be calling for impeachment the minute there's proof a president pocketed a BILLION DOLLARS from the Department of Justice. On May 20 2026 02:57 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
Translation: after this blatant embezzlement falls out of the news cycle because the next blatant act of corruption takes its spot, conservatives like you will pretend it never happened. + Show Spoiler +What are you talking about, look at this list of republican priorities, I’m sure they all still care and expect them.
Doge checks
Tariff checks
Greenland hospital boat
10% app credit cards
1500% cheaper drugs
2 dollar gas
Epstein files
Reopening the Hormuz straight, that is open or closed multiple times daily depending on who you talk to (closed to most actual ships since the war that’s not a war mind you)
Cheaper groceries
Ballroom funded by donors
Wall paid for by Mexico
Those are all still coming for sure, and many more of the promises, better than you even ever imagined. Don’t worry so much.
Oblade, you are up to date and plugged in, mind giving LS a quick update on each and when he can expect them completed? Those priorities sound great the way you sell them. Plugged in, gotcha, yeah I just texted Stephen Miller and he said unless Democrats stop blocking those great ideas you promoted, you'll have to wait until Trump's third term. Take it with a grain of salt though you know how he gets. I get you like them, it’s the snake oil you bought. The crazy part is you keep buying it. Oh you're actually against cheaper groceries, free ballrooms, free walls, cheaper drugs, 2 dollar gas, Greenland hospital ships (?), 10% app credit cards (?), stimulus from reducing government waste, and stimulus from punishing companies that undercut America? Don't I have egg on my face... I didn't realize those were actually bad. On May 20 2026 03:35 Billyboy wrote:
How have the Dems blocked them when you control all levels of government and the judiciary?
You severely overestimate my power. No I’m for most of those things. Just if I was promised them all and it didn’t happen, I would be mad at the people who promised it, not their rivals. And I’d be extra mad if they were all getting themselves rich well I was paying more. But I don’t want to be a peasant to an emperor. So my mindset is impossible for you understand. I’m also not so stupid to believe the next promises. Or dumb enough to believe 1500% decreases in drug costs, other people paying for stuff or most of these vague promises without a plan. You're for most of those things? You spend a lot of time pushing Democrats to team up on this rhetoric, hold some Republican feet to the fire, and make things happen, right? Maybe volunteer their detailed plans for him and everyone to adopt. As a voting American. That'd be a productive activity. Don't be mad the wall wasn't built, be glad we didn't end up needing it. The drug costs one is a great litmus test. Normal people go "Oh obviously he's just using the original price before elevation as the baseline for calculating because he loves big sounding numbers and wants any excuse in the world to use as exaggerated sounding figures as possible," get it in 2 seconds, and move on. Then there's you... you point out obviously nothing can decrease more than 100% because then it would be negative and a price can't just be negative, and it's a law you MUST use the EXACT current price as a baseline when calculating a decrease, which means Trump didn't choose a different baseline, that would be against the rules, and on the contrary you're a math genius towering above him, and you bring this up in... the middle of a conversation about the DOJ adjudicating settlement payouts for claims against the government. How does that particular math work? Let's aim for a trumpian 1000% decrease. Say the current price is 100 dollars. What number would that trumpian decrease be? Like, if I'm using a baseline of say 90 dollars, what is the final number that I'm arriving at? I think i got this one. You use increases in reverse. So basically, you are looking at what starting number would mean a 1000% increase to get where you are at the beginning, and if you reduce the price to that number, that is a 1000% decrease in TrumpMath. However, you also need to be bad at maths. So in this case, i say if you drop the price from 100 dollars to 10 dollars, that is a TrumpMath decrease of 1000%. Because if you increase the price from $10 to $100, you increase it to a 1000% of the original price, which if you are bad at maths is the same as increasing it by 1000%. And of course, reversing that 1000% price increase must also be a 1000% price drop. This is how maths works if you never understood beyond 5th grade in school. And since we got a group in power who really hates anyone with any education or anyone who is smarter than them, they love this kind of shit. Because they know how stuff ought to work, and finally someone in power is also willing to tell those nerds how stuff is supposed to work in the real world. Now it is those university nerds who are bad at math, while the guys in the trailer park are right. (final_price /initial_price)^-1 * 100, doesn't include baseline, it's just a rate of change that is defined backwards in time, a sort of "what will have been" the price type definition. oBlade explicitly mentioned that trump was using a different baseline so just wondering how that bit of math works, presumably so the rate of change is still defined as going forward in time, rather than backward.
Oh yeah, oBlade is totally making stuff up too in that regard. Trump's version of math, which oBlade has decided to bizarrely defend, isn't actual math.
|
On May 20 2026 17:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 14:06 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 06:58 Simberto wrote:On May 20 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 04:49 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 04:03 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 02:18 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
two POTUS appointees of different agencies agreeing to give a billion dollars to the POTUS is just hilariously obvious On May 20 2026 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
gaslighting The problem is by the end of 2028 when Trump has never gotten a dime from this fund, you're not going to remember how wrong you were now. But in the interim 2 years every time Trump so much as stubs his toe you'll be going "This is exactly like how he gave himself $1B through the DOJ D-days ago" with your entire ideology leaning on a load-bearing untruth that didn't and isn't going to happen. Translation: after this blatant embezzlement falls out of the news cycle because the next blatant act of corruption takes its spot, conservatives like you will pretend it never happened. Oh believe me I'll be calling for impeachment the minute there's proof a president pocketed a BILLION DOLLARS from the Department of Justice. Yep, I'm sure that'll be the thing that crosses the line for you. Not the child rape or violent insurrection or losing a war against Iran or appointing incompetent alcoholics to critical positions overseeing national security, but the sixteenth or seventeenth time when Trump siphons taxpayer dollars into his own accounts. Violent insurrection acquitted luckily. Child rape is open if you could prove it. There's no precedent that indicates "losing wars" is a high crime/misdemeanor subject to impeachment, at any rate the war needs to be a bit more over to make such an assessment. Appointing incompetent alcoholics would be a case of proving it... and then impeaching the incompetent alcoholic. On May 20 2026 03:57 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 03:41 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 03:35 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
Translation: after this blatant embezzlement falls out of the news cycle because the next blatant act of corruption takes its spot, conservatives like you will pretend it never happened. Oh believe me I'll be calling for impeachment the minute there's proof a president pocketed a BILLION DOLLARS from the Department of Justice. On May 20 2026 02:57 Billyboy wrote:[quote] + Show Spoiler +What are you talking about, look at this list of republican priorities, I’m sure they all still care and expect them.
Doge checks
Tariff checks
Greenland hospital boat
10% app credit cards
1500% cheaper drugs
2 dollar gas
Epstein files
Reopening the Hormuz straight, that is open or closed multiple times daily depending on who you talk to (closed to most actual ships since the war that’s not a war mind you)
Cheaper groceries
Ballroom funded by donors
Wall paid for by Mexico
Those are all still coming for sure, and many more of the promises, better than you even ever imagined. Don’t worry so much.
Oblade, you are up to date and plugged in, mind giving LS a quick update on each and when he can expect them completed? Those priorities sound great the way you sell them. Plugged in, gotcha, yeah I just texted Stephen Miller and he said unless Democrats stop blocking those great ideas you promoted, you'll have to wait until Trump's third term. Take it with a grain of salt though you know how he gets. I get you like them, it’s the snake oil you bought. The crazy part is you keep buying it. Oh you're actually against cheaper groceries, free ballrooms, free walls, cheaper drugs, 2 dollar gas, Greenland hospital ships (?), 10% app credit cards (?), stimulus from reducing government waste, and stimulus from punishing companies that undercut America? Don't I have egg on my face... I didn't realize those were actually bad. On May 20 2026 03:35 Billyboy wrote:
How have the Dems blocked them when you control all levels of government and the judiciary?
You severely overestimate my power. No I’m for most of those things. Just if I was promised them all and it didn’t happen, I would be mad at the people who promised it, not their rivals. And I’d be extra mad if they were all getting themselves rich well I was paying more. But I don’t want to be a peasant to an emperor. So my mindset is impossible for you understand. I’m also not so stupid to believe the next promises. Or dumb enough to believe 1500% decreases in drug costs, other people paying for stuff or most of these vague promises without a plan. You're for most of those things? You spend a lot of time pushing Democrats to team up on this rhetoric, hold some Republican feet to the fire, and make things happen, right? Maybe volunteer their detailed plans for him and everyone to adopt. As a voting American. That'd be a productive activity. Don't be mad the wall wasn't built, be glad we didn't end up needing it. The drug costs one is a great litmus test. Normal people go "Oh obviously he's just using the original price before elevation as the baseline for calculating because he loves big sounding numbers and wants any excuse in the world to use as exaggerated sounding figures as possible," get it in 2 seconds, and move on. Then there's you... you point out obviously nothing can decrease more than 100% because then it would be negative and a price can't just be negative, and it's a law you MUST use the EXACT current price as a baseline when calculating a decrease, which means Trump didn't choose a different baseline, that would be against the rules, and on the contrary you're a math genius towering above him, and you bring this up in... the middle of a conversation about the DOJ adjudicating settlement payouts for claims against the government. How does that particular math work? Let's aim for a trumpian 1000% decrease. Say the current price is 100 dollars. What number would that trumpian decrease be? Like, if I'm using a baseline of say 90 dollars, what is the final number that I'm arriving at? I think i got this one. You use increases in reverse. So basically, you are looking at what starting number would mean a 1000% increase to get where you are at the beginning, and if you reduce the price to that number, that is a 1000% decrease in TrumpMath. However, you also need to be bad at maths. So in this case, i say if you drop the price from 100 dollars to 10 dollars, that is a TrumpMath decrease of 1000%. Because if you increase the price from $10 to $100, you increase it to a 1000% of the original price, which if you are bad at maths is the same as increasing it by 1000%. And of course, reversing that 1000% price increase must also be a 1000% price drop. This is how maths works if you never understood beyond 5th grade in school. And since we got a group in power who really hates anyone with any education or anyone who is smarter than them, they love this kind of shit. Because they know how stuff ought to work, and finally someone in power is also willing to tell those nerds how stuff is supposed to work in the real world. Now it is those university nerds who are bad at math, while the guys in the trailer park are right. (final_price /initial_price)^-1 * 100, doesn't include baseline, it's just a rate of change that is defined backwards in time, a sort of "what will have been" the price type definition. oBlade explicitly mentioned that trump was using a different baseline so just wondering how that bit of math works, presumably so the rate of change is still defined as going forward in time, rather than backward. Oh yeah, oBlade is totally making stuff up too in that regard. Trump's version of math, which oBlade has decided to bizarrely defend, isn't actual math.
Well, it is probably still math. There's no doubt an equation you can use to obtain a "9000% drop". The problem isn't the math, it's the language. Normal usage is that you start at 100%, so a 9000% percent drop would end up at -8900% of your starting point, which is absolutely nonsensical. Using the end point as your baseline for the rate of change calculation you could end up at a 9000% drop and it'd make sense mathematically, but that isn't how people talk about perceptual changes. Inventing a wildly different equation that has even less to do with percentual changes could also have a perfectly valid result of 9000%. The problem is matching the equation to some real-world phenomenon in a way that makes sense.
You have 3 apples and give 2 to Johnny. How many apples do you have could have the answer 17 if you invent the extra context that the 3 apples were actually only the ones in your hand, but there's another 16 in a basket on the table. Did nobody mention that?!
|
On May 20 2026 20:43 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 17:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2026 14:06 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 06:58 Simberto wrote:On May 20 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 04:49 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 04:03 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 02:18 oBlade wrote:
[quote][quote]
The problem is by the end of 2028 when Trump has never gotten a dime from this fund, you're not going to remember how wrong you were now. But in the interim 2 years every time Trump so much as stubs his toe you'll be going "This is exactly like how he gave himself $1B through the DOJ D-days ago" with your entire ideology leaning on a load-bearing untruth that didn't and isn't going to happen. Translation: after this blatant embezzlement falls out of the news cycle because the next blatant act of corruption takes its spot, conservatives like you will pretend it never happened. Oh believe me I'll be calling for impeachment the minute there's proof a president pocketed a BILLION DOLLARS from the Department of Justice. Yep, I'm sure that'll be the thing that crosses the line for you. Not the child rape or violent insurrection or losing a war against Iran or appointing incompetent alcoholics to critical positions overseeing national security, but the sixteenth or seventeenth time when Trump siphons taxpayer dollars into his own accounts. Violent insurrection acquitted luckily. Child rape is open if you could prove it. There's no precedent that indicates "losing wars" is a high crime/misdemeanor subject to impeachment, at any rate the war needs to be a bit more over to make such an assessment. Appointing incompetent alcoholics would be a case of proving it... and then impeaching the incompetent alcoholic. On May 20 2026 03:57 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 03:41 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 03:35 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
Oh believe me I'll be calling for impeachment the minute there's proof a president pocketed a BILLION DOLLARS from the Department of Justice.
[quote]
Those priorities sound great the way you sell them. Plugged in, gotcha, yeah I just texted Stephen Miller and he said unless Democrats stop blocking those great ideas you promoted, you'll have to wait until Trump's third term. Take it with a grain of salt though you know how he gets. I get you like them, it’s the snake oil you bought. The crazy part is you keep buying it. Oh you're actually against cheaper groceries, free ballrooms, free walls, cheaper drugs, 2 dollar gas, Greenland hospital ships (?), 10% app credit cards (?), stimulus from reducing government waste, and stimulus from punishing companies that undercut America? Don't I have egg on my face... I didn't realize those were actually bad. On May 20 2026 03:35 Billyboy wrote:
How have the Dems blocked them when you control all levels of government and the judiciary?
You severely overestimate my power. No I’m for most of those things. Just if I was promised them all and it didn’t happen, I would be mad at the people who promised it, not their rivals. And I’d be extra mad if they were all getting themselves rich well I was paying more. But I don’t want to be a peasant to an emperor. So my mindset is impossible for you understand. I’m also not so stupid to believe the next promises. Or dumb enough to believe 1500% decreases in drug costs, other people paying for stuff or most of these vague promises without a plan. You're for most of those things? You spend a lot of time pushing Democrats to team up on this rhetoric, hold some Republican feet to the fire, and make things happen, right? Maybe volunteer their detailed plans for him and everyone to adopt. As a voting American. That'd be a productive activity. Don't be mad the wall wasn't built, be glad we didn't end up needing it. The drug costs one is a great litmus test. Normal people go "Oh obviously he's just using the original price before elevation as the baseline for calculating because he loves big sounding numbers and wants any excuse in the world to use as exaggerated sounding figures as possible," get it in 2 seconds, and move on. Then there's you... you point out obviously nothing can decrease more than 100% because then it would be negative and a price can't just be negative, and it's a law you MUST use the EXACT current price as a baseline when calculating a decrease, which means Trump didn't choose a different baseline, that would be against the rules, and on the contrary you're a math genius towering above him, and you bring this up in... the middle of a conversation about the DOJ adjudicating settlement payouts for claims against the government. How does that particular math work? Let's aim for a trumpian 1000% decrease. Say the current price is 100 dollars. What number would that trumpian decrease be? Like, if I'm using a baseline of say 90 dollars, what is the final number that I'm arriving at? I think i got this one. You use increases in reverse. So basically, you are looking at what starting number would mean a 1000% increase to get where you are at the beginning, and if you reduce the price to that number, that is a 1000% decrease in TrumpMath. However, you also need to be bad at maths. So in this case, i say if you drop the price from 100 dollars to 10 dollars, that is a TrumpMath decrease of 1000%. Because if you increase the price from $10 to $100, you increase it to a 1000% of the original price, which if you are bad at maths is the same as increasing it by 1000%. And of course, reversing that 1000% price increase must also be a 1000% price drop. This is how maths works if you never understood beyond 5th grade in school. And since we got a group in power who really hates anyone with any education or anyone who is smarter than them, they love this kind of shit. Because they know how stuff ought to work, and finally someone in power is also willing to tell those nerds how stuff is supposed to work in the real world. Now it is those university nerds who are bad at math, while the guys in the trailer park are right. (final_price /initial_price)^-1 * 100, doesn't include baseline, it's just a rate of change that is defined backwards in time, a sort of "what will have been" the price type definition. oBlade explicitly mentioned that trump was using a different baseline so just wondering how that bit of math works, presumably so the rate of change is still defined as going forward in time, rather than backward. Oh yeah, oBlade is totally making stuff up too in that regard. Trump's version of math, which oBlade has decided to bizarrely defend, isn't actual math. Well, it is probably still math. There's no doubt an equation you can use to obtain a "9000% drop". The problem isn't the math, it's the language. Normal usage is that you start at 100%, so a 9000% percent drop would end up at -8900% of your starting point, which is absolutely nonsensical. Using the end point as your baseline for the rate of change calculation you could end up at a 9000% drop and it'd make sense mathematically, but that isn't how people talk about perceptual changes. Inventing a wildly different equation that has even less to do with percentual changes could also have a perfectly valid result of 9000%. The problem is matching the equation to some real-world phenomenon in a way that makes sense. You have 3 apples and give 2 to Johnny. How many apples do you have could have the answer 17 if you invent the extra context that the 3 apples were actually only the ones in your hand, but there's another 16 in a basket on the table. Did nobody mention that?!
You are overthinking this by a lot. It is simply stupid people math. "If i increase something by 50%, and then decrease the result by 50%, i am back where i started" is an instinct a lot of children have when first confronted with percentages. Most learn that that is incorrect. Some don't, and then move on to become the president of the USA.
And the other stupid children who failed to learn this in school cheer the moron in chief on, while the ones who did learn it but are still in the cult try to sanewash his being bad at math, because dear leader can never have any weakness and loyalty to dear leader is more important than anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
