EPTOn May 20 2026 07:13 Simberto wrote:
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.
Show nested quote +
On May 20 2026 07:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
But isn't that a 90% discount / decrease / drop? 90% of $100 is being removed from the original price, leaving just $10?
On May 20 2026 06:58 Simberto wrote:
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%.
On May 20 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:
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?
On May 20 2026 04:49 oBlade wrote:
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.
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.
On May 20 2026 04:03 LightSpectra wrote:
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.
On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:
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 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:
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.
On May 20 2026 02:18 oBlade wrote:
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.
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
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
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:
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.
On May 20 2026 03:41 oBlade wrote:
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.
You severely overestimate my power.
On May 20 2026 03:35 Billyboy wrote:
I get you like them, it’s the snake oil you bought. The crazy part is you keep buying it.
On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:
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.
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.
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.
[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 +
Oblade, you are up to date and plugged in, mind giving LS a quick update on each and when he can expect them completed?
[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.
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?
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:
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.
Show nested quote +
On May 20 2026 07:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
But isn't that a 90% discount / decrease / drop? 90% of $100 is being removed from the original price, leaving just $10?
On May 20 2026 06:58 Simberto wrote:
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%.
On May 20 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:
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?
On May 20 2026 04:49 oBlade wrote:
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.
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.
On May 20 2026 04:03 LightSpectra wrote:
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.
On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:
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 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:
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.
On May 20 2026 02:18 oBlade wrote:
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.
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
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
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:
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.
On May 20 2026 03:41 oBlade wrote:
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.
You severely overestimate my power.
On May 20 2026 03:35 Billyboy wrote:
I get you like them, it’s the snake oil you bought. The crazy part is you keep buying it.
On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:
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.
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.
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.
[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 +
Oblade, you are up to date and plugged in, mind giving LS a quick update on each and when he can expect them completed?
[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.
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?
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!
