Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On 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?!
Yeah it (tautologically) becomes mathematically valid if you redefine terms and add in a whole bunch of other information that turns the invalid nonsense into a clear mathematically valid idea. That's kind of like how "immigrants are stealing and eating your pets" is totally true if you change "immigrants", "stealing", "eating", and "pets" into other words that create an actually true statement (and maybe redefine "are", "and", and "your" if you really want to go full-on Jordan Peterson).
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
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+ Show Spoiler +
, 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
Some level of deception I would presume.
Sorta, like I said previously, Bush's corruption and the consequences that came with it were pretty terrible.
On May 19 2026 23:35 Doublemint wrote: something rather important may have been lost when insanity is dutifully accepted and the race to the absolute bottom deemed business as usual.
I wonder if there are actully cases in the past 20-30 years coming even remotely close to this travesty of the Trump MAGA slush fund and its origin story?
Using media like the NYT to lie the country into a war killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people while enriching your friends was pretty bad. Perhaps not as personally profitable though?
Trump being brazen about it is part of what got him their support in the first place. I'd refer to the old George Carlin bit where you can replace "Clinton" with "Trump" (coarse language warning):
If we take the reference to a "businessman" as a sort of prophecy, then we can look forward to the next "Trump" being a full on messianic figure.
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.
(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.
Not really. Rand Paul over Fetterman is interesting to me. I wonder if you're alone on that? How do you identify politically?
On May 19 2026 23:33 GreenHorizons wrote: [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.
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
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.
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.
Aye broadly in agreement there!
You only have to look at Trump himself to see problems with hypotheticals and how they potentially map to reality. Useful to make a point or illustrate a phenomenon sure,
If I time-travelled back to 2016, or some other juncture and asked Trump or GOP supporters whether they’d vote for a candidate or otherwise support them who did x, y or z, with those things just being lists of many things Trump actually did, I think many would say that they would not. Furthermore, I think many would absolutely believe that and be speaking honestly, but equally we’ve seen rather different results when that’s been actually put to the test
And yes, I realise the irony of a hypothetical of me doing some polling with the aid of time-travel being used to complain about hypotheticals :p
I think the hypothetical ‘would one support a monster who has good policies?’ is quite interesting, albeit a bit fiendish! As grim as it may be, in said hypothetical, do you go with the auld ‘got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette’ line of thinking? If say, said same individual made a massive dent in poverty/relative poverty, both improving quality of life for millions but also cutting preventable premature death, that’s a lot of good to stack up versus even egregious but ultimately small-scale personal impropriety.
I dunno about the rest of youse, that’s a tad tricky for me but I might go for the monster, the policy platform would have to be pretty good.
If it’s pretty underwhelming, and it’s simply DemTrump versus GOPTrump, I’m still going with the lesser evil in all likelihood, although I wouldn’t like it, nor would I actually support such an individual beyond that straight shoutout.
On May 19 2026 23:33 GreenHorizons wrote: [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.
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
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.
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. + Show Spoiler +
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.
If I asked Democrats in the 70's how they would feel about their biggest accomplishment going forward being passing a healthcare bill to the right of Nixon or how they'd feel voting for someone they themselves identify as aiding and abetting a genocide, I trust they would have had a similar reaction. They'd have been wrong.
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.
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.
You never heard of a fixed baseline?
If Shkreli's stock went from $1 to $50 and then from $50 to $100 you'll have an aneurysm if someone says it increased 5000% since it only increased 100% from yesterday?
The country moved very far to the right since Nixon's time and you're aiding and abetting this happening even further. If left-wing people won't vote for Democrats then they have to move right to win a different demographic of voter.
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.
You never heard of a fixed baseline?
If Shkreli's stock went from $1 to $50 and then from $50 to $100 you'll have an aneurysm if someone says it increased 5000% since it only increased 100% from yesterday?
Why deal with hypothetical numbers when RFK Jr's math is right here for everyone to see?
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
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.
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. + Show Spoiler +
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.
If I asked Democrats in the 70's how they would feel about their biggest accomplishment going forward being passing a healthcare bill to the right of Nixon or how they'd feel voting for someone they themselves identify as aiding and abetting a genocide, I trust they would have had a similar reaction. They'd have been wrong.
The country moved very far to the right since Nixon's time + Show Spoiler +
and you're aiding and abetting this happening even further.
If left-wing people won't vote for Democrats then they have to move right to win a different demographic of voter.
Regardless of the veracity of your analysis (it's lacking imo), it supports what I'm saying.
You're basically describing a very plausible ostensible rationale for how it could happen.
On May 20 2026 00:54 WombaT wrote: [quote] 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
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.
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. + Show Spoiler +
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.
If I asked Democrats in the 70's how they would feel about their biggest accomplishment going forward being passing a healthcare bill to the right of Nixon or how they'd feel voting for someone they themselves identify as aiding and abetting a genocide, I trust they would have had a similar reaction. They'd have been wrong.
The country moved very far to the right since Nixon's time + Show Spoiler +
and you're aiding and abetting this happening even further.
If left-wing people won't vote for Democrats then they have to move right to win a different demographic of voter.
Regardless of the veracity of your analysis (it's lacking imo), it supports what I'm saying.
You're basically describing a very plausible ostensible rationale for how it could happen.
I agree that on economic issues, the majority of the country has moved to the right of the New Deal and Great Society eras of welfare capitalism.
The cure for that is for left-wing people to vote for the most left-wing people with a realistic chance to win like Mamdani, whom you supported before you changed your mind because you only supported him when you thought Democrats didn't like him.
On May 20 2026 21:35 Uldridge wrote: Iirc, Dems didn't like him either, but they endorsed him because it was clear he was the only candidate with a chance.
Funny how that works. Maybe GH could learn something from it.
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.
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. + Show Spoiler +
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.
If I asked Democrats in the 70's how they would feel about their biggest accomplishment going forward being passing a healthcare bill to the right of Nixon or how they'd feel voting for someone they themselves identify as aiding and abetting a genocide, I trust they would have had a similar reaction. They'd have been wrong.
The country moved very far to the right since Nixon's time + Show Spoiler +
and you're aiding and abetting this happening even further.
If left-wing people won't vote for Democrats then they have to move right to win a different demographic of voter.
Regardless of the veracity of your analysis (it's lacking imo), it supports what I'm saying.
You're basically describing a very plausible ostensible rationale for how it could happen.
I agree that on economic issues, the majority of the country has moved to the right of the New Deal and Great Society eras of welfare capitalism.
The cure for that is for left-wing people to vote for the most left-wing people with a realistic chance to win like Mamdani, + Show Spoiler +
whom you supported before you changed your mind because you only supported him when you thought Democrats didn't like him.
Mamdani didn't start with a realistic chance to win. Who is the potential "Mamdani" of the Dem primary for 2028 that we might be able to rally behind and make the frontrunner in your mind?
They didn't endorse Mamdani because for most of the race, it looked like it would be a Cuomo walkover. When Mamdani started to rise in the polls he started winning more and more endorsements from establishment Democrats.
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.
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. + Show Spoiler +
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.
If I asked Democrats in the 70's how they would feel about their biggest accomplishment going forward being passing a healthcare bill to the right of Nixon or how they'd feel voting for someone they themselves identify as aiding and abetting a genocide, I trust they would have had a similar reaction. They'd have been wrong.
The country moved very far to the right since Nixon's time + Show Spoiler +
and you're aiding and abetting this happening even further.
If left-wing people won't vote for Democrats then they have to move right to win a different demographic of voter.
Regardless of the veracity of your analysis (it's lacking imo), it supports what I'm saying.
You're basically describing a very plausible ostensible rationale for how it could happen.
I agree that on economic issues, the majority of the country has moved to the right of the New Deal and Great Society eras of welfare capitalism.
The cure for that is for left-wing people to vote for the most left-wing people with a realistic chance to win like Mamdani, + Show Spoiler +
whom you supported before you changed your mind because you only supported him when you thought Democrats didn't like him.
Mamdani didn't start with a realistic chance to win. Who is the potential "Mamdani" of the Dem primary for 2028 that we might be able to rally behind and make the frontrunner in your mind?
James Talarico if he wins his Senate race in Texas.
On May 20 2026 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] 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.
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. + Show Spoiler +
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.
If I asked Democrats in the 70's how they would feel about their biggest accomplishment going forward being passing a healthcare bill to the right of Nixon or how they'd feel voting for someone they themselves identify as aiding and abetting a genocide, I trust they would have had a similar reaction. They'd have been wrong.
The country moved very far to the right since Nixon's time + Show Spoiler +
and you're aiding and abetting this happening even further.
If left-wing people won't vote for Democrats then they have to move right to win a different demographic of voter.
Regardless of the veracity of your analysis (it's lacking imo), it supports what I'm saying.
You're basically describing a very plausible ostensible rationale for how it could happen.
I agree that on economic issues, the majority of the country has moved to the right of the New Deal and Great Society eras of welfare capitalism.
The cure for that is for left-wing people to vote for the most left-wing people with a realistic chance to win like Mamdani, + Show Spoiler +
whom you supported before you changed your mind because you only supported him when you thought Democrats didn't like him.
Mamdani didn't start with a realistic chance to win. Who is the potential "Mamdani" of the Dem primary for 2028 that we might be able to rally behind and make the frontrunner in your mind?
James Talarico if he wins his Senate race in Texas.
That sounds preposterous on its face to me, but I'm curious if it is something other people here would support?
On May 20 2026 09:00 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] 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:[quote]
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. + Show Spoiler +
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.
If I asked Democrats in the 70's how they would feel about their biggest accomplishment going forward being passing a healthcare bill to the right of Nixon or how they'd feel voting for someone they themselves identify as aiding and abetting a genocide, I trust they would have had a similar reaction. They'd have been wrong.
The country moved very far to the right since Nixon's time + Show Spoiler +
and you're aiding and abetting this happening even further.
If left-wing people won't vote for Democrats then they have to move right to win a different demographic of voter.
Regardless of the veracity of your analysis (it's lacking imo), it supports what I'm saying.
You're basically describing a very plausible ostensible rationale for how it could happen.
I agree that on economic issues, the majority of the country has moved to the right of the New Deal and Great Society eras of welfare capitalism.
The cure for that is for left-wing people to vote for the most left-wing people with a realistic chance to win like Mamdani, + Show Spoiler +
whom you supported before you changed your mind because you only supported him when you thought Democrats didn't like him.
Mamdani didn't start with a realistic chance to win. Who is the potential "Mamdani" of the Dem primary for 2028 that we might be able to rally behind and make the frontrunner in your mind?
James Talarico if he wins his Senate race in Texas.
That sounds preposterous on its face to me, but I'm curious if it is something other people here would support?
Talarico's currently leading the polls, but that's more preposterous than Mamdani being at 1% a few months before the NYC election?
Polling is pretty sparse afaict, so I'd take that "lead" with some salt. While I am skeptical he'll win in Texas, it was him being the Dem presidential nominee (where he isn't even polling in an ~11 person field) that particularly seems preposterous to me.
That said, him winning in Texas is plausible and something people here could make a meaningful difference on if we wanted to and would probably serve as a reasonable test audience for your desire to make Talarico the nominee.
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.
You never heard of a fixed baseline?
If Shkreli's stock went from $1 to $50 and then from $50 to $100 you'll have an aneurysm if someone says it increased 5000% since it only increased 100% from yesterday?
I think it's adorable that you're trying to math-splain to people who are better versed in the space than you (hint: don't mindlessly agree with Trump's "math"), but your example of percent increase doesn't work when talking about percent decrease, which is what Trump and his affiliates were asserting. You can choose an arbitrarily large percent increase because your answer will just become a ludicrously large positive number, but in practice you can't choose such a percent decrease because you're eventually bound below by the number 0, since negative numbers are rarely sensible as a cost. More on that here (and in other people's posts, offering other fun alternatives because this whole idea is nonsensical anyway), since you apparently missed it the first time:
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.
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?
Ninety would probably reduce by nine hundred, I guess? $900 off a $90 item, so a free item plus 810 free additional dollars?
"Buying" an originally-priced $100 item costs you zero dollars and you get an additional $900 with that now-free item? Since $100 would reduce by $1,000?
(A discount of more than 100% is typically nonsensical in most real purchases. Obviously, Trump doesn't understand middle school math, which is why even his niece said he had to cheat on the SATs.)
EPT
