|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 20 2026 21:11 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 17:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2026 14:06 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 06:58 Simberto wrote:On May 20 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 04:49 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 04:03 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 02:18 oBlade wrote:
[quote][quote]
The problem is by the end of 2028 when Trump has never gotten a dime from this fund, you're not going to remember how wrong you were now. But in the interim 2 years every time Trump so much as stubs his toe you'll be going "This is exactly like how he gave himself $1B through the DOJ D-days ago" with your entire ideology leaning on a load-bearing untruth that didn't and isn't going to happen. Translation: after this blatant embezzlement falls out of the news cycle because the next blatant act of corruption takes its spot, conservatives like you will pretend it never happened. Oh believe me I'll be calling for impeachment the minute there's proof a president pocketed a BILLION DOLLARS from the Department of Justice. Yep, I'm sure that'll be the thing that crosses the line for you. Not the child rape or violent insurrection or losing a war against Iran or appointing incompetent alcoholics to critical positions overseeing national security, but the sixteenth or seventeenth time when Trump siphons taxpayer dollars into his own accounts. Violent insurrection acquitted luckily. Child rape is open if you could prove it. There's no precedent that indicates "losing wars" is a high crime/misdemeanor subject to impeachment, at any rate the war needs to be a bit more over to make such an assessment. Appointing incompetent alcoholics would be a case of proving it... and then impeaching the incompetent alcoholic. On May 20 2026 03:57 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 03:41 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 03:35 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
Oh believe me I'll be calling for impeachment the minute there's proof a president pocketed a BILLION DOLLARS from the Department of Justice.
[quote]
Those priorities sound great the way you sell them. Plugged in, gotcha, yeah I just texted Stephen Miller and he said unless Democrats stop blocking those great ideas you promoted, you'll have to wait until Trump's third term. Take it with a grain of salt though you know how he gets. I get you like them, it’s the snake oil you bought. The crazy part is you keep buying it. Oh you're actually against cheaper groceries, free ballrooms, free walls, cheaper drugs, 2 dollar gas, Greenland hospital ships (?), 10% app credit cards (?), stimulus from reducing government waste, and stimulus from punishing companies that undercut America? Don't I have egg on my face... I didn't realize those were actually bad. On May 20 2026 03:35 Billyboy wrote:
How have the Dems blocked them when you control all levels of government and the judiciary?
You severely overestimate my power. No I’m for most of those things. Just if I was promised them all and it didn’t happen, I would be mad at the people who promised it, not their rivals. And I’d be extra mad if they were all getting themselves rich well I was paying more. But I don’t want to be a peasant to an emperor. So my mindset is impossible for you understand. I’m also not so stupid to believe the next promises. Or dumb enough to believe 1500% decreases in drug costs, other people paying for stuff or most of these vague promises without a plan. You're for most of those things? You spend a lot of time pushing Democrats to team up on this rhetoric, hold some Republican feet to the fire, and make things happen, right? Maybe volunteer their detailed plans for him and everyone to adopt. As a voting American. That'd be a productive activity. Don't be mad the wall wasn't built, be glad we didn't end up needing it. The drug costs one is a great litmus test. Normal people go "Oh obviously he's just using the original price before elevation as the baseline for calculating because he loves big sounding numbers and wants any excuse in the world to use as exaggerated sounding figures as possible," get it in 2 seconds, and move on. Then there's you... you point out obviously nothing can decrease more than 100% because then it would be negative and a price can't just be negative, and it's a law you MUST use the EXACT current price as a baseline when calculating a decrease, which means Trump didn't choose a different baseline, that would be against the rules, and on the contrary you're a math genius towering above him, and you bring this up in... the middle of a conversation about the DOJ adjudicating settlement payouts for claims against the government. How does that particular math work? Let's aim for a trumpian 1000% decrease. Say the current price is 100 dollars. What number would that trumpian decrease be? Like, if I'm using a baseline of say 90 dollars, what is the final number that I'm arriving at? I think i got this one. You use increases in reverse. So basically, you are looking at what starting number would mean a 1000% increase to get where you are at the beginning, and if you reduce the price to that number, that is a 1000% decrease in TrumpMath. However, you also need to be bad at maths. So in this case, i say if you drop the price from 100 dollars to 10 dollars, that is a TrumpMath decrease of 1000%. Because if you increase the price from $10 to $100, you increase it to a 1000% of the original price, which if you are bad at maths is the same as increasing it by 1000%. And of course, reversing that 1000% price increase must also be a 1000% price drop. This is how maths works if you never understood beyond 5th grade in school. And since we got a group in power who really hates anyone with any education or anyone who is smarter than them, they love this kind of shit. Because they know how stuff ought to work, and finally someone in power is also willing to tell those nerds how stuff is supposed to work in the real world. Now it is those university nerds who are bad at math, while the guys in the trailer park are right. (final_price /initial_price)^-1 * 100, doesn't include baseline, it's just a rate of change that is defined backwards in time, a sort of "what will have been" the price type definition. oBlade explicitly mentioned that trump was using a different baseline so just wondering how that bit of math works, presumably so the rate of change is still defined as going forward in time, rather than backward. Oh yeah, oBlade is totally making stuff up too in that regard. Trump's version of math, which oBlade has decided to bizarrely defend, isn't actual math. 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?
come on. even you gotta be smart enough to realize that when talking about decreases, no number above 100% makes sense. unless we're talking about negatives, but a price is never negative. he's not giving away the damn thing. good job doing the russian troll farm jobs for them. Keep the discussion distracted from all the important things actually happening under your nose. I'd say these are things that you'd be against as well, but atp, I know better.
|
On May 20 2026 21:17 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 21:11 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 17:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2026 14:06 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 06:58 Simberto wrote:On May 20 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 04:49 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 04:03 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:
[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. 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:
[quote]
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? “If you have a $600 drug and you reduce it to $10, that’s a 600% reduction.”
And as your link says: "Trump defended his past claims that prices on prescription medications had been cut by well over 100% — something that is mathematically impossible without manufacturers dropping prices to zero and then presumably paying consumers to use their product."
Looks like another source has confirmed: Trump and RFK Jr. and oBlade are all really bad at understanding percentages.
|
On May 20 2026 22:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 21:50 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 21:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 21:40 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 21:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 21:29 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 21:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 21:14 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 21:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 15:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:[quote] 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. + Show Spoiler +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.
If he wins in Texas his fame among Democrats will be astronomical. He would be hailed as bigger than Clinton in the 90s and Obama in the 00s. FOX News will instantly start running a 24/7 smear network against him like they did against Hillary for twenty years.
On May 20 2026 22:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 21:17 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 21:11 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 17:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2026 14:06 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 06:58 Simberto wrote:On May 20 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 04:49 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 04:03 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:
[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. 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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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? “If you have a $600 drug and you reduce it to $10, that’s a 600% reduction.” And as your link says: "Trump defended his past claims that prices on prescription medications had been cut by well over 100% — something that is mathematically impossible without manufacturers dropping prices to zero and then presumably paying consumers to use their product." Looks like another source has confirmed: Trump and RFK Jr. and oBlade are all really bad at understanding percentages.
oBlade seems smart enough to know how percentages work, but aggressive gaslighting is his default option and nobody can find the factory reset button.
|
here I was thinking "doesn't a 99.9% reduction just sound better" ? and then I realized who the target audience was
|
Northern Ireland26858 Posts
On May 20 2026 21:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 21:29 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 21:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 21:14 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 21:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 15:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 20 2026 09:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 08:36 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2026 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 07:49 WombaT wrote:[quote] It’s a hypothetical, perhaps not if it came down to the crunch. + Show Spoiler +But nobody as brazenly corrupt, to the degree Trump is is getting anywhere near that particular shootout. They’ll long be weeded out by various factors, notably people not liking such shenanigans
More corrupt than ideal, or even pretty damn corrupt, sure that can sneak through, but not to Trumpian levels What do you mean "perhaps"? The premise and point is that winning is more important than opposing your nominee if you know they are as corrupt as Trump, regardless of party. Call it "sheepish", "pragmatic", "cynical", or whatever, but it is what people here and otherwise have made very clear they believe people should do. You don't have even a basic understanding of the position you're strawmanning. Party is irrelevant, nobody here is "vote blue no matter who". You're just struggling to understand and respond to what I said. Though, to your misunderstanding, for all practical purposes everyone here is "vote blue no matter who" iirc there aren't any currently elected Republicans anyone could come up with they would even hypothetically vote for over any currently sitting Democrats. I said: If we find out the next Democrat nominee is exactly as corrupt as Trump and the next Republican is too, people here and otherwise wouldn't hesitate to accept voting for/supporting someone equally corrupt. There isn't anything inextricably disqualifying about Trump's corruption that would make supporting someone equally corrupt a nonstarter for someone regardless of party. Wombat's point about Democrats having a better chance of screening someone like that out is accurate imo, but not in conflict with my original statement. 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. + Show Spoiler +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?
Show me someone who can call that 2 years out and I’ll show you a bullshitter.
As you yourself say, Mamdani didn’t start with a realistic chance to win, and indeed he almost certainly doesn’t win if Cuomo didn’t have the baggage of being a piece of shit. But win he did
Electoral politics is hugely subject to wider circumstance, and even a bit of momentum can perpetuate, even in places where it’s generally reasonably static and relatively predictable.
Two years out I highly doubt even Barack Obama thought he’d have a shot of being President, Sanders in performing so creditably in primaries with his platform, or Mamdani actually becoming NYC mayor, never mind 3rd parties. Trump probably thought he could be President because he’s well, Trump, but nobody else was calling that in 2014
Some things in the politics are more predictable than others, doesn’t preclude a bit of spitballing and speculation mind but I don’t see how anyone can give a particularly good answer here.
Things that are reasonably predictable would be a Trump administration doing what they campaigned on doing domestically and internationally, which people factored into their ‘lesser evils’ calculations
You seem to want to sidestep disastrous calls you made in this domain, even if purely rhetorically, repeatedly while demanding people have answers to basically unanswerable questions and don’t seem to understand why this annoys people
|
On May 20 2026 22:10 WombaT wrote:
Are we really at the point where we’re having to argue how math(s) works? First They Came for the mathematicians twelve-year-olds who understood what "percent decrease" means...
On May 20 2026 22:22 misirlou wrote:
here I was thinking "doesn't a 99.9% reduction just sound better" ? and then I realized who the target audience was A thousand is sooooo much bigger and better than 99.9, therefore a thousand should be used!
On May 20 2026 22:17 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 22:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2026 21:17 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 21:11 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 17:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2026 14:06 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 06:58 Simberto wrote:On May 20 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 04:49 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 04:03 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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? “If you have a $600 drug and you reduce it to $10, that’s a 600% reduction.” And as your link says: "Trump defended his past claims that prices on prescription medications had been cut by well over 100% — something that is mathematically impossible without manufacturers dropping prices to zero and then presumably paying consumers to use their product." Looks like another source has confirmed: Trump and RFK Jr. and oBlade are all really bad at understanding percentages. oBlade seems smart enough to know how percentages work, but aggressive gaslighting is his default option and nobody can find the factory reset button. Yeah sometimes it's hard to figure out if the problem is due to sincere ignorance or malicious intent. I don't know if Hanlon's Razor still applies to someone like oBlade anymore, who's pretty much exhausted any possible semblance of being a good-faith interlocutor. But for today, I'll be generous and err on the side of Hanlon, and assume oBlade is just really, really bad at math. + Show Spoiler +
|
On May 20 2026 22:12 misirlou wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 21:11 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 17:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2026 14:06 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 06:58 Simberto wrote:On May 20 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 04:49 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 04:03 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:
[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. 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:
[quote]
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? come on. even you gotta be smart enough to realize that when talking about decreases, no number above 100% makes sense. unless we're talking about negatives, but a price is never negative. he's not giving away the damn thing. good job doing the russian troll farm jobs for them. Keep the discussion distracted from all the important things actually happening under your nose. I'd say these are things that you'd be against as well, but atp, I know better.
I didn't bring this up.
I think it's fantastic talking about having a goal of lowering drug prices, and being the only administration in recent memory to do it with the MOST FAVORED NATION RULE for Medicare pricing, which the Biden admin undid (because Democrats are now bankrolled by pharma), and with specialty drugs initially with TrumpRx and then expanding to do the same with generics after partnering with Mark Cuban.
Other people like to bring up he said something wrong, apropos of no conversation whatsoever, when there's a perfectly plausible interpretation sitting right in front of them.
On May 20 2026 22:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 21:17 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 21:11 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 17:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2026 14:06 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 06:58 Simberto wrote:On May 20 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 04:49 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 04:03 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:
[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. 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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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? “If you have a $600 drug and you reduce it to $10, that’s a 600% reduction.” And as your link says: "Trump defended his past claims that prices on prescription medications had been cut by well over 100% — something that is mathematically impossible without manufacturers dropping prices to zero and then presumably paying consumers to use their product." Looks like another source has confirmed: Trump and RFK Jr. and oBlade are all really bad at understanding percentages.
"Nice to meet you DPB, my name is Ethel, I had four sons. I lost half of them in WW2 and then half of them in the Korean War."
"Nice to meet you as well. So may I meet him?"
"Pardon me? My husband? Yes, he's in the other room, he was an oil man."
"Nice to meet you sport, what can I do for you?"
"No no, I mean the other son."
"My wife and I lost our sons, I just heard her telling you."
"No, she said she lost half of 4 which is 2, and then later lost half of the remaining two, but half of 2 is only one, which means she lost a total of 3 sons so one must be around here still somewhere. Can I meet him?"
"That's not what she meant, son, she meant a loss from the 4 sons we had originally. The other 50% died, the second half."
"Why are you bizarrely defending your wife's totally made-up version of math?"
How many children she has is a toss-up between zero, one, or an unknown number including potential daughters she never mentioned. What doesn't work is telling her how many children she has when she knows better than you what she meant. The four urns on the mantelpiece gives it away by inference. It doesn't require a wild new axiomatization where parallel lines intersect.
Oh look. This is Jason Rockefeller. By 1900 he had amassed a fortune of $1 million dollars. In 1901, he lost everything, but by 1902 he had tripled it.
Does he have a net worth of $3 million or do you think it's more important to show that YOU know actually 3 times 0 equals 0?
|
On May 20 2026 22:49 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 22:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2026 21:17 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 21:11 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 17:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2026 14:06 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 06:58 Simberto wrote:On May 20 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 04:49 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 04:03 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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? “If you have a $600 drug and you reduce it to $10, that’s a 600% reduction.” And as your link says: "Trump defended his past claims that prices on prescription medications had been cut by well over 100% — something that is mathematically impossible without manufacturers dropping prices to zero and then presumably paying consumers to use their product." Looks like another source has confirmed: Trump and RFK Jr. and oBlade are all really bad at understanding percentages. "Nice to meet you DPB, my name is Ethel, I had four sons. I lost half of them in WW2 and then half of them in the Korean War." "Nice to meet you as well. So may I meet him?" "Pardon me? My husband? Yes, he's in the other room, he was an oil man." "Nice to meet you sport, what can I do for you?" "No no, I mean the other son." "My wife and I lost our sons, I just heard her telling you." "No, she said she lost half of 4 which is 2, and then later lost half of the remaining two, but half of 2 is only one, which means she lost a total of 3 sons so one must be around here still somewhere. Can I meet him?" "That's not what she meant, son, she meant a loss from the 4 sons we had originally. The other 50% died, the second half." "Why are you bizarrely defending your wife's totally made-up version of math?" How many children she has is a toss-up between zero, one, or an unknown number including potential daughters she never mentioned. What doesn't work is telling her how many children she has when she knows better than you what she meant. The four urns on the mantelpiece gives it away by inference. It doesn't require a wild new axiomatization where parallel lines intersect. Oh look. This is Jason Rockefeller. By 1900 he had amassed a fortune of $1 million dollars. In 1901, he lost everything, but by 1902 he had tripled it. Does he have a net worth of $3 million or do you think it's more important to show that YOU know actually 3 times 0 equals 0?
Oh dear. It looks like you're the one who just had "an aneurysm". Please take better care of yourself!
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/brain-aneurysm/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20361595
|
On May 20 2026 06:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 04:49 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 04:03 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 02:18 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
two POTUS appointees of different agencies agreeing to give a billion dollars to the POTUS is just hilariously obvious On May 20 2026 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
gaslighting The problem is by the end of 2028 when Trump has never gotten a dime from this fund, you're not going to remember how wrong you were now. But in the interim 2 years every time Trump so much as stubs his toe you'll be going "This is exactly like how he gave himself $1B through the DOJ D-days ago" with your entire ideology leaning on a load-bearing untruth that didn't and isn't going to happen. Translation: after this blatant embezzlement falls out of the news cycle because the next blatant act of corruption takes its spot, conservatives like you will pretend it never happened. Oh believe me I'll be calling for impeachment the minute there's proof a president pocketed a BILLION DOLLARS from the Department of Justice. Yep, I'm sure that'll be the thing that crosses the line for you. Not the child rape or violent insurrection or losing a war against Iran or appointing incompetent alcoholics to critical positions overseeing national security, but the sixteenth or seventeenth time when Trump siphons taxpayer dollars into his own accounts. Violent insurrection acquitted luckily. Child rape is open if you could prove it. There's no precedent that indicates "losing wars" is a high crime/misdemeanor subject to impeachment, at any rate the war needs to be a bit more over to make such an assessment. Appointing incompetent alcoholics would be a case of proving it... and then impeaching the incompetent alcoholic. On May 20 2026 03:57 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 03:41 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 03:35 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 02:18 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
two POTUS appointees of different agencies agreeing to give a billion dollars to the POTUS is just hilariously obvious On May 20 2026 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
gaslighting The problem is by the end of 2028 when Trump has never gotten a dime from this fund, you're not going to remember how wrong you were now. But in the interim 2 years every time Trump so much as stubs his toe you'll be going "This is exactly like how he gave himself $1B through the DOJ D-days ago" with your entire ideology leaning on a load-bearing untruth that didn't and isn't going to happen. Translation: after this blatant embezzlement falls out of the news cycle because the next blatant act of corruption takes its spot, conservatives like you will pretend it never happened. Oh believe me I'll be calling for impeachment the minute there's proof a president pocketed a BILLION DOLLARS from the Department of Justice. On May 20 2026 02:57 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 02:18 oBlade wrote:
[quote][quote]
The problem is by the end of 2028 when Trump has never gotten a dime from this fund, you're not going to remember how wrong you were now. But in the interim 2 years every time Trump so much as stubs his toe you'll be going "This is exactly like how he gave himself $1B through the DOJ D-days ago" with your entire ideology leaning on a load-bearing untruth that didn't and isn't going to happen. Translation: after this blatant embezzlement falls out of the news cycle because the next blatant act of corruption takes its spot, conservatives like you will pretend it never happened. + Show Spoiler +What are you talking about, look at this list of republican priorities, I’m sure they all still care and expect them.
Doge checks
Tariff checks
Greenland hospital boat
10% app credit cards
1500% cheaper drugs
2 dollar gas
Epstein files
Reopening the Hormuz straight, that is open or closed multiple times daily depending on who you talk to (closed to most actual ships since the war that’s not a war mind you)
Cheaper groceries
Ballroom funded by donors
Wall paid for by Mexico
Those are all still coming for sure, and many more of the promises, better than you even ever imagined. Don’t worry so much.
Oblade, you are up to date and plugged in, mind giving LS a quick update on each and when he can expect them completed? Those priorities sound great the way you sell them. Plugged in, gotcha, yeah I just texted Stephen Miller and he said unless Democrats stop blocking those great ideas you promoted, you'll have to wait until Trump's third term. Take it with a grain of salt though you know how he gets. I get you like them, it’s the snake oil you bought. The crazy part is you keep buying it. Oh you're actually against cheaper groceries, free ballrooms, free walls, cheaper drugs, 2 dollar gas, Greenland hospital ships (?), 10% app credit cards (?), stimulus from reducing government waste, and stimulus from punishing companies that undercut America? Don't I have egg on my face... I didn't realize those were actually bad. On May 20 2026 03:35 Billyboy wrote:
How have the Dems blocked them when you control all levels of government and the judiciary?
You severely overestimate my power. No I’m for most of those things. Just if I was promised them all and it didn’t happen, I would be mad at the people who promised it, not their rivals. And I’d be extra mad if they were all getting themselves rich well I was paying more. But I don’t want to be a peasant to an emperor. So my mindset is impossible for you understand. I’m also not so stupid to believe the next promises. Or dumb enough to believe 1500% decreases in drug costs, other people paying for stuff or most of these vague promises without a plan. You're for most of those things? You spend a lot of time pushing Democrats to team up on this rhetoric, hold some Republican feet to the fire, and make things happen, right? Maybe volunteer their detailed plans for him and everyone to adopt. As a voting American. That'd be a productive activity. Don't be mad the wall wasn't built, be glad we didn't end up needing it. The drug costs one is a great litmus test. Normal people go "Oh obviously he's just using the original price before elevation as the baseline for calculating because he loves big sounding numbers and wants any excuse in the world to use as exaggerated sounding figures as possible," get it in 2 seconds, and move on. Then there's you... you point out obviously nothing can decrease more than 100% because then it would be negative and a price can't just be negative, and it's a law you MUST use the EXACT current price as a baseline when calculating a decrease, which means Trump didn't choose a different baseline, that would be against the rules, and on the contrary you're a math genius towering above him, and you bring this up in... the middle of a conversation about the DOJ adjudicating settlement payouts for claims against the government. How does that particular math work? Let's aim for a trumpian 1000% decrease. Say the current price is 100 dollars. What number would that trumpian decrease be? Like, if I'm using a baseline of say 90 dollars, what is the final number that I'm arriving at? 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.)
And you complaining about US healthcare...
On even less serious note, since I enjoy math puzzles, and now apparently also dissecting logic of stupid people, it seems like Simberto was closest.
quotes of trump statements are from AI so may not be perfect.
"A pill that costs $10 in London costs $130 in New York or Los Angeles." that would be 1200% increase
"A drug that costs $86 in Berlin cost $1,300 in New York." that would be roughly 1400% increase
So I would guess in Trump mind if you take away the difference you decreasing by the same percent.
May be completely wrong, however this seems most probable.
|
On May 20 2026 22:52 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 06:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 04:49 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 04:03 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 02:18 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
two POTUS appointees of different agencies agreeing to give a billion dollars to the POTUS is just hilariously obvious On May 20 2026 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
gaslighting The problem is by the end of 2028 when Trump has never gotten a dime from this fund, you're not going to remember how wrong you were now. But in the interim 2 years every time Trump so much as stubs his toe you'll be going "This is exactly like how he gave himself $1B through the DOJ D-days ago" with your entire ideology leaning on a load-bearing untruth that didn't and isn't going to happen. Translation: after this blatant embezzlement falls out of the news cycle because the next blatant act of corruption takes its spot, conservatives like you will pretend it never happened. Oh believe me I'll be calling for impeachment the minute there's proof a president pocketed a BILLION DOLLARS from the Department of Justice. Yep, I'm sure that'll be the thing that crosses the line for you. Not the child rape or violent insurrection or losing a war against Iran or appointing incompetent alcoholics to critical positions overseeing national security, but the sixteenth or seventeenth time when Trump siphons taxpayer dollars into his own accounts. Violent insurrection acquitted luckily. Child rape is open if you could prove it. There's no precedent that indicates "losing wars" is a high crime/misdemeanor subject to impeachment, at any rate the war needs to be a bit more over to make such an assessment. Appointing incompetent alcoholics would be a case of proving it... and then impeaching the incompetent alcoholic. On May 20 2026 03:57 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 03:41 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 03:35 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 02:18 oBlade wrote:
[quote][quote]
The problem is by the end of 2028 when Trump has never gotten a dime from this fund, you're not going to remember how wrong you were now. But in the interim 2 years every time Trump so much as stubs his toe you'll be going "This is exactly like how he gave himself $1B through the DOJ D-days ago" with your entire ideology leaning on a load-bearing untruth that didn't and isn't going to happen. Translation: after this blatant embezzlement falls out of the news cycle because the next blatant act of corruption takes its spot, conservatives like you will pretend it never happened. Oh believe me I'll be calling for impeachment the minute there's proof a president pocketed a BILLION DOLLARS from the Department of Justice. On May 20 2026 02:57 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
Translation: after this blatant embezzlement falls out of the news cycle because the next blatant act of corruption takes its spot, conservatives like you will pretend it never happened. + Show Spoiler +What are you talking about, look at this list of republican priorities, I’m sure they all still care and expect them.
Doge checks
Tariff checks
Greenland hospital boat
10% app credit cards
1500% cheaper drugs
2 dollar gas
Epstein files
Reopening the Hormuz straight, that is open or closed multiple times daily depending on who you talk to (closed to most actual ships since the war that’s not a war mind you)
Cheaper groceries
Ballroom funded by donors
Wall paid for by Mexico
Those are all still coming for sure, and many more of the promises, better than you even ever imagined. Don’t worry so much.
Oblade, you are up to date and plugged in, mind giving LS a quick update on each and when he can expect them completed? Those priorities sound great the way you sell them. Plugged in, gotcha, yeah I just texted Stephen Miller and he said unless Democrats stop blocking those great ideas you promoted, you'll have to wait until Trump's third term. Take it with a grain of salt though you know how he gets. I get you like them, it’s the snake oil you bought. The crazy part is you keep buying it. Oh you're actually against cheaper groceries, free ballrooms, free walls, cheaper drugs, 2 dollar gas, Greenland hospital ships (?), 10% app credit cards (?), stimulus from reducing government waste, and stimulus from punishing companies that undercut America? Don't I have egg on my face... I didn't realize those were actually bad. On May 20 2026 03:35 Billyboy wrote:
How have the Dems blocked them when you control all levels of government and the judiciary?
You severely overestimate my power. No I’m for most of those things. Just if I was promised them all and it didn’t happen, I would be mad at the people who promised it, not their rivals. And I’d be extra mad if they were all getting themselves rich well I was paying more. But I don’t want to be a peasant to an emperor. So my mindset is impossible for you understand. I’m also not so stupid to believe the next promises. Or dumb enough to believe 1500% decreases in drug costs, other people paying for stuff or most of these vague promises without a plan. You're for most of those things? You spend a lot of time pushing Democrats to team up on this rhetoric, hold some Republican feet to the fire, and make things happen, right? Maybe volunteer their detailed plans for him and everyone to adopt. As a voting American. That'd be a productive activity. Don't be mad the wall wasn't built, be glad we didn't end up needing it. The drug costs one is a great litmus test. Normal people go "Oh obviously he's just using the original price before elevation as the baseline for calculating because he loves big sounding numbers and wants any excuse in the world to use as exaggerated sounding figures as possible," get it in 2 seconds, and move on. Then there's you... you point out obviously nothing can decrease more than 100% because then it would be negative and a price can't just be negative, and it's a law you MUST use the EXACT current price as a baseline when calculating a decrease, which means Trump didn't choose a different baseline, that would be against the rules, and on the contrary you're a math genius towering above him, and you bring this up in... the middle of a conversation about the DOJ adjudicating settlement payouts for claims against the government. How does that particular math work? Let's aim for a trumpian 1000% decrease. Say the current price is 100 dollars. What number would that trumpian decrease be? Like, if I'm using a baseline of say 90 dollars, what is the final number that I'm arriving at? 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.) And you complaining about US healthcare... On even less serious note, since I enjoy math puzzles, and now apparently also dissecting logic of stupid people, it seems like Simberto was closest. quotes of trump statements are from AI so may not be perfect. "A pill that costs $10 in London costs $130 in New York or Los Angeles." that would be 1200% increase "A drug that costs $86 in Berlin cost $1,300 in New York." that would be roughly 1400% increase So I would guess in Trump mind if you take away the difference you decreasing by the same percent. May be completely wrong, however this seems most probable.
Yep, Simberto was proposing an interpretation that's likely consistent with Trump's logic. My response was just using real math logic.
|
On May 20 2026 22:17 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 22:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 21:50 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 21:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 21:40 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 21:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 21:29 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 21:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 21:14 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 21:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
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. + Show Spoiler +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. If he wins in Texas his fame among Democrats will be astronomical. He would be hailed as bigger than Clinton in the 90s and Obama in the 00s. FOX News will instantly start running a 24/7 smear network against him like they did against Hillary for twenty years.
Maybe? Hard to say, and it's not looking good so far based on the initial reaction from our test audience here to your plan.
Like you say though, it's moot if he doesn't win in Texas first. So is there even any meaningful support for that here?
|
Northern Ireland26858 Posts
On May 20 2026 22:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 22:10 WombaT wrote:
Are we really at the point where we’re having to argue how math(s) works? First They Came for the mathematicians twelve-year-olds who understood what "percent decrease" means... Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 22:22 misirlou wrote:
here I was thinking "doesn't a 99.9% reduction just sound better" ? and then I realized who the target audience was A thousand is sooooo much bigger and better than 99.9, therefore a thousand should be used! Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 22:17 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 22:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2026 21:17 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 21:11 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 17:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2026 14:06 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 06:58 Simberto wrote:On May 20 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 04:49 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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? “If you have a $600 drug and you reduce it to $10, that’s a 600% reduction.” And as your link says: "Trump defended his past claims that prices on prescription medications had been cut by well over 100% — something that is mathematically impossible without manufacturers dropping prices to zero and then presumably paying consumers to use their product." Looks like another source has confirmed: Trump and RFK Jr. and oBlade are all really bad at understanding percentages. oBlade seems smart enough to know how percentages work, but aggressive gaslighting is his default option and nobody can find the factory reset button. Yeah sometimes it's hard to figure out if the problem is due to sincere ignorance or malicious intent. I don't know if Hanlon's Razor still applies to someone like oBlade anymore, who's pretty much exhausted any possible semblance of being a good-faith interlocutor. But for today, I'll be generous and err on the side of Hanlon, and assume oBlade is just really, really bad at math. + Show Spoiler +
Oblade is a performance artist testing the limits of bullshit argumentation and TL.net is their chosen canvas
They’re obviously not thick, I presume they like a challenge hence the perpetual defence of the seemingly indefensible. If they were a StarCraft player they’d be pushing boundaries there too, ‘can I get GM building only probes?’
|
On May 20 2026 22:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
Maybe? Hard to say, and it's not looking good so far based on the initial reaction from our test audience here to your plan.
I feel immense second-hand embarrassment every time you act like ~four Americans in the TL.net politics megathread not paying attention to you can be extrapolated into a national long-term political strategy for the entire left-wing.
|
United States44012 Posts
On May 20 2026 22:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 22:49 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 22:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2026 21:17 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 21:11 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 17:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2026 14:06 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 06:58 Simberto wrote:On May 20 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 04:49 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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? “If you have a $600 drug and you reduce it to $10, that’s a 600% reduction.” And as your link says: "Trump defended his past claims that prices on prescription medications had been cut by well over 100% — something that is mathematically impossible without manufacturers dropping prices to zero and then presumably paying consumers to use their product." Looks like another source has confirmed: Trump and RFK Jr. and oBlade are all really bad at understanding percentages. "Nice to meet you DPB, my name is Ethel, I had four sons. I lost half of them in WW2 and then half of them in the Korean War." "Nice to meet you as well. So may I meet him?" "Pardon me? My husband? Yes, he's in the other room, he was an oil man." "Nice to meet you sport, what can I do for you?" "No no, I mean the other son." "My wife and I lost our sons, I just heard her telling you." "No, she said she lost half of 4 which is 2, and then later lost half of the remaining two, but half of 2 is only one, which means she lost a total of 3 sons so one must be around here still somewhere. Can I meet him?" "That's not what she meant, son, she meant a loss from the 4 sons we had originally. The other 50% died, the second half." "Why are you bizarrely defending your wife's totally made-up version of math?" How many children she has is a toss-up between zero, one, or an unknown number including potential daughters she never mentioned. What doesn't work is telling her how many children she has when she knows better than you what she meant. The four urns on the mantelpiece gives it away by inference. It doesn't require a wild new axiomatization where parallel lines intersect. Oh look. This is Jason Rockefeller. By 1900 he had amassed a fortune of $1 million dollars. In 1901, he lost everything, but by 1902 he had tripled it. Does he have a net worth of $3 million or do you think it's more important to show that YOU know actually 3 times 0 equals 0? Oh dear. It looks like you're the one who just had "an aneurysm". Please take better care of yourself! https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/brain-aneurysm/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20361595
This was also my reaction.
|
On May 20 2026 22:52 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 06:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 04:49 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 04:03 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 02:18 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
two POTUS appointees of different agencies agreeing to give a billion dollars to the POTUS is just hilariously obvious On May 20 2026 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
gaslighting The problem is by the end of 2028 when Trump has never gotten a dime from this fund, you're not going to remember how wrong you were now. But in the interim 2 years every time Trump so much as stubs his toe you'll be going "This is exactly like how he gave himself $1B through the DOJ D-days ago" with your entire ideology leaning on a load-bearing untruth that didn't and isn't going to happen. Translation: after this blatant embezzlement falls out of the news cycle because the next blatant act of corruption takes its spot, conservatives like you will pretend it never happened. Oh believe me I'll be calling for impeachment the minute there's proof a president pocketed a BILLION DOLLARS from the Department of Justice. Yep, I'm sure that'll be the thing that crosses the line for you. Not the child rape or violent insurrection or losing a war against Iran or appointing incompetent alcoholics to critical positions overseeing national security, but the sixteenth or seventeenth time when Trump siphons taxpayer dollars into his own accounts. Violent insurrection acquitted luckily. Child rape is open if you could prove it. There's no precedent that indicates "losing wars" is a high crime/misdemeanor subject to impeachment, at any rate the war needs to be a bit more over to make such an assessment. Appointing incompetent alcoholics would be a case of proving it... and then impeaching the incompetent alcoholic. On May 20 2026 03:57 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 03:41 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 03:35 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 02:18 oBlade wrote:
[quote][quote]
The problem is by the end of 2028 when Trump has never gotten a dime from this fund, you're not going to remember how wrong you were now. But in the interim 2 years every time Trump so much as stubs his toe you'll be going "This is exactly like how he gave himself $1B through the DOJ D-days ago" with your entire ideology leaning on a load-bearing untruth that didn't and isn't going to happen. Translation: after this blatant embezzlement falls out of the news cycle because the next blatant act of corruption takes its spot, conservatives like you will pretend it never happened. Oh believe me I'll be calling for impeachment the minute there's proof a president pocketed a BILLION DOLLARS from the Department of Justice. On May 20 2026 02:57 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
Translation: after this blatant embezzlement falls out of the news cycle because the next blatant act of corruption takes its spot, conservatives like you will pretend it never happened. + Show Spoiler +What are you talking about, look at this list of republican priorities, I’m sure they all still care and expect them.
Doge checks
Tariff checks
Greenland hospital boat
10% app credit cards
1500% cheaper drugs
2 dollar gas
Epstein files
Reopening the Hormuz straight, that is open or closed multiple times daily depending on who you talk to (closed to most actual ships since the war that’s not a war mind you)
Cheaper groceries
Ballroom funded by donors
Wall paid for by Mexico
Those are all still coming for sure, and many more of the promises, better than you even ever imagined. Don’t worry so much.
Oblade, you are up to date and plugged in, mind giving LS a quick update on each and when he can expect them completed? Those priorities sound great the way you sell them. Plugged in, gotcha, yeah I just texted Stephen Miller and he said unless Democrats stop blocking those great ideas you promoted, you'll have to wait until Trump's third term. Take it with a grain of salt though you know how he gets. I get you like them, it’s the snake oil you bought. The crazy part is you keep buying it. Oh you're actually against cheaper groceries, free ballrooms, free walls, cheaper drugs, 2 dollar gas, Greenland hospital ships (?), 10% app credit cards (?), stimulus from reducing government waste, and stimulus from punishing companies that undercut America? Don't I have egg on my face... I didn't realize those were actually bad. On May 20 2026 03:35 Billyboy wrote:
How have the Dems blocked them when you control all levels of government and the judiciary?
You severely overestimate my power. No I’m for most of those things. Just if I was promised them all and it didn’t happen, I would be mad at the people who promised it, not their rivals. And I’d be extra mad if they were all getting themselves rich well I was paying more. But I don’t want to be a peasant to an emperor. So my mindset is impossible for you understand. I’m also not so stupid to believe the next promises. Or dumb enough to believe 1500% decreases in drug costs, other people paying for stuff or most of these vague promises without a plan. You're for most of those things? You spend a lot of time pushing Democrats to team up on this rhetoric, hold some Republican feet to the fire, and make things happen, right? Maybe volunteer their detailed plans for him and everyone to adopt. As a voting American. That'd be a productive activity. Don't be mad the wall wasn't built, be glad we didn't end up needing it. The drug costs one is a great litmus test. Normal people go "Oh obviously he's just using the original price before elevation as the baseline for calculating because he loves big sounding numbers and wants any excuse in the world to use as exaggerated sounding figures as possible," get it in 2 seconds, and move on. Then there's you... you point out obviously nothing can decrease more than 100% because then it would be negative and a price can't just be negative, and it's a law you MUST use the EXACT current price as a baseline when calculating a decrease, which means Trump didn't choose a different baseline, that would be against the rules, and on the contrary you're a math genius towering above him, and you bring this up in... the middle of a conversation about the DOJ adjudicating settlement payouts for claims against the government. How does that particular math work? Let's aim for a trumpian 1000% decrease. Say the current price is 100 dollars. What number would that trumpian decrease be? Like, if I'm using a baseline of say 90 dollars, what is the final number that I'm arriving at? 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.) And you complaining about US healthcare... On even less serious note, since I enjoy math puzzles, and now apparently also dissecting logic of stupid people, it seems like Simberto was closest. quotes of trump statements are from AI so may not be perfect. "A pill that costs $10 in London costs $130 in New York or Los Angeles." that would be 1200% increase "A drug that costs $86 in Berlin cost $1,300 in New York." that would be roughly 1400% increase So I would guess in Trump mind if you take away the difference you decreasing by the same percent. May be completely wrong, however this seems most probable.
Seems like a reasonable interpretation of idiot-math to me!
Meanwhile, oBlade :
"I lost half my sons in january, half in febuary, and lost four times my sons in march. In total, I lost 900% of my sons. I see no problem with any of my math. Nobody in the history of the world has lost sons like I have."
|
|
|
On May 20 2026 21:11 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 17:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2026 14:06 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 06:58 Simberto wrote:On May 20 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 04:49 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 04:03 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 02:18 oBlade wrote:
[quote][quote]
The problem is by the end of 2028 when Trump has never gotten a dime from this fund, you're not going to remember how wrong you were now. But in the interim 2 years every time Trump so much as stubs his toe you'll be going "This is exactly like how he gave himself $1B through the DOJ D-days ago" with your entire ideology leaning on a load-bearing untruth that didn't and isn't going to happen. Translation: after this blatant embezzlement falls out of the news cycle because the next blatant act of corruption takes its spot, conservatives like you will pretend it never happened. Oh believe me I'll be calling for impeachment the minute there's proof a president pocketed a BILLION DOLLARS from the Department of Justice. Yep, I'm sure that'll be the thing that crosses the line for you. Not the child rape or violent insurrection or losing a war against Iran or appointing incompetent alcoholics to critical positions overseeing national security, but the sixteenth or seventeenth time when Trump siphons taxpayer dollars into his own accounts. Violent insurrection acquitted luckily. Child rape is open if you could prove it. There's no precedent that indicates "losing wars" is a high crime/misdemeanor subject to impeachment, at any rate the war needs to be a bit more over to make such an assessment. Appointing incompetent alcoholics would be a case of proving it... and then impeaching the incompetent alcoholic. On May 20 2026 03:57 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 03:41 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 03:35 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
Oh believe me I'll be calling for impeachment the minute there's proof a president pocketed a BILLION DOLLARS from the Department of Justice.
[quote]
Those priorities sound great the way you sell them. Plugged in, gotcha, yeah I just texted Stephen Miller and he said unless Democrats stop blocking those great ideas you promoted, you'll have to wait until Trump's third term. Take it with a grain of salt though you know how he gets. I get you like them, it’s the snake oil you bought. The crazy part is you keep buying it. Oh you're actually against cheaper groceries, free ballrooms, free walls, cheaper drugs, 2 dollar gas, Greenland hospital ships (?), 10% app credit cards (?), stimulus from reducing government waste, and stimulus from punishing companies that undercut America? Don't I have egg on my face... I didn't realize those were actually bad. On May 20 2026 03:35 Billyboy wrote:
How have the Dems blocked them when you control all levels of government and the judiciary?
You severely overestimate my power. No I’m for most of those things. Just if I was promised them all and it didn’t happen, I would be mad at the people who promised it, not their rivals. And I’d be extra mad if they were all getting themselves rich well I was paying more. But I don’t want to be a peasant to an emperor. So my mindset is impossible for you understand. I’m also not so stupid to believe the next promises. Or dumb enough to believe 1500% decreases in drug costs, other people paying for stuff or most of these vague promises without a plan. You're for most of those things? You spend a lot of time pushing Democrats to team up on this rhetoric, hold some Republican feet to the fire, and make things happen, right? Maybe volunteer their detailed plans for him and everyone to adopt. As a voting American. That'd be a productive activity. Don't be mad the wall wasn't built, be glad we didn't end up needing it. The drug costs one is a great litmus test. Normal people go "Oh obviously he's just using the original price before elevation as the baseline for calculating because he loves big sounding numbers and wants any excuse in the world to use as exaggerated sounding figures as possible," get it in 2 seconds, and move on. Then there's you... you point out obviously nothing can decrease more than 100% because then it would be negative and a price can't just be negative, and it's a law you MUST use the EXACT current price as a baseline when calculating a decrease, which means Trump didn't choose a different baseline, that would be against the rules, and on the contrary you're a math genius towering above him, and you bring this up in... the middle of a conversation about the DOJ adjudicating settlement payouts for claims against the government. How does that particular math work? Let's aim for a trumpian 1000% decrease. Say the current price is 100 dollars. What number would that trumpian decrease be? Like, if I'm using a baseline of say 90 dollars, what is the final number that I'm arriving at? I think i got this one. You use increases in reverse. So basically, you are looking at what starting number would mean a 1000% increase to get where you are at the beginning, and if you reduce the price to that number, that is a 1000% decrease in TrumpMath. However, you also need to be bad at maths. So in this case, i say if you drop the price from 100 dollars to 10 dollars, that is a TrumpMath decrease of 1000%. Because if you increase the price from $10 to $100, you increase it to a 1000% of the original price, which if you are bad at maths is the same as increasing it by 1000%. And of course, reversing that 1000% price increase must also be a 1000% price drop. This is how maths works if you never understood beyond 5th grade in school. And since we got a group in power who really hates anyone with any education or anyone who is smarter than them, they love this kind of shit. Because they know how stuff ought to work, and finally someone in power is also willing to tell those nerds how stuff is supposed to work in the real world. Now it is those university nerds who are bad at math, while the guys in the trailer park are right. (final_price /initial_price)^-1 * 100, doesn't include baseline, it's just a rate of change that is defined backwards in time, a sort of "what will have been" the price type definition. oBlade explicitly mentioned that trump was using a different baseline so just wondering how that bit of math works, presumably so the rate of change is still defined as going forward in time, rather than backward. Oh yeah, oBlade is totally making stuff up too in that regard. Trump's version of math, which oBlade has decided to bizarrely defend, isn't actual math. 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?
So if it’s in reverse, 100 today and then 50 tomorrow and 1 in a month. Is is corrected that it dropped 100% in a day and 5000% in a month?
Can you walk em through this baseline math real slowly. Sounds like you’ve really got it locked down.
|
On May 20 2026 22:52 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 06:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2026 06:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On May 20 2026 04:49 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 04:03 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 02:18 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
two POTUS appointees of different agencies agreeing to give a billion dollars to the POTUS is just hilariously obvious On May 20 2026 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
gaslighting The problem is by the end of 2028 when Trump has never gotten a dime from this fund, you're not going to remember how wrong you were now. But in the interim 2 years every time Trump so much as stubs his toe you'll be going "This is exactly like how he gave himself $1B through the DOJ D-days ago" with your entire ideology leaning on a load-bearing untruth that didn't and isn't going to happen. Translation: after this blatant embezzlement falls out of the news cycle because the next blatant act of corruption takes its spot, conservatives like you will pretend it never happened. Oh believe me I'll be calling for impeachment the minute there's proof a president pocketed a BILLION DOLLARS from the Department of Justice. Yep, I'm sure that'll be the thing that crosses the line for you. Not the child rape or violent insurrection or losing a war against Iran or appointing incompetent alcoholics to critical positions overseeing national security, but the sixteenth or seventeenth time when Trump siphons taxpayer dollars into his own accounts. Violent insurrection acquitted luckily. Child rape is open if you could prove it. There's no precedent that indicates "losing wars" is a high crime/misdemeanor subject to impeachment, at any rate the war needs to be a bit more over to make such an assessment. Appointing incompetent alcoholics would be a case of proving it... and then impeaching the incompetent alcoholic. On May 20 2026 03:57 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 03:41 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 03:35 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 03:26 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:On May 20 2026 02:18 oBlade wrote:
[quote][quote]
The problem is by the end of 2028 when Trump has never gotten a dime from this fund, you're not going to remember how wrong you were now. But in the interim 2 years every time Trump so much as stubs his toe you'll be going "This is exactly like how he gave himself $1B through the DOJ D-days ago" with your entire ideology leaning on a load-bearing untruth that didn't and isn't going to happen. Translation: after this blatant embezzlement falls out of the news cycle because the next blatant act of corruption takes its spot, conservatives like you will pretend it never happened. Oh believe me I'll be calling for impeachment the minute there's proof a president pocketed a BILLION DOLLARS from the Department of Justice. On May 20 2026 02:57 Billyboy wrote:On May 20 2026 02:39 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
Translation: after this blatant embezzlement falls out of the news cycle because the next blatant act of corruption takes its spot, conservatives like you will pretend it never happened. + Show Spoiler +What are you talking about, look at this list of republican priorities, I’m sure they all still care and expect them.
Doge checks
Tariff checks
Greenland hospital boat
10% app credit cards
1500% cheaper drugs
2 dollar gas
Epstein files
Reopening the Hormuz straight, that is open or closed multiple times daily depending on who you talk to (closed to most actual ships since the war that’s not a war mind you)
Cheaper groceries
Ballroom funded by donors
Wall paid for by Mexico
Those are all still coming for sure, and many more of the promises, better than you even ever imagined. Don’t worry so much.
Oblade, you are up to date and plugged in, mind giving LS a quick update on each and when he can expect them completed? Those priorities sound great the way you sell them. Plugged in, gotcha, yeah I just texted Stephen Miller and he said unless Democrats stop blocking those great ideas you promoted, you'll have to wait until Trump's third term. Take it with a grain of salt though you know how he gets. I get you like them, it’s the snake oil you bought. The crazy part is you keep buying it. Oh you're actually against cheaper groceries, free ballrooms, free walls, cheaper drugs, 2 dollar gas, Greenland hospital ships (?), 10% app credit cards (?), stimulus from reducing government waste, and stimulus from punishing companies that undercut America? Don't I have egg on my face... I didn't realize those were actually bad. On May 20 2026 03:35 Billyboy wrote:
How have the Dems blocked them when you control all levels of government and the judiciary?
You severely overestimate my power. No I’m for most of those things. Just if I was promised them all and it didn’t happen, I would be mad at the people who promised it, not their rivals. And I’d be extra mad if they were all getting themselves rich well I was paying more. But I don’t want to be a peasant to an emperor. So my mindset is impossible for you understand. I’m also not so stupid to believe the next promises. Or dumb enough to believe 1500% decreases in drug costs, other people paying for stuff or most of these vague promises without a plan. You're for most of those things? You spend a lot of time pushing Democrats to team up on this rhetoric, hold some Republican feet to the fire, and make things happen, right? Maybe volunteer their detailed plans for him and everyone to adopt. As a voting American. That'd be a productive activity. Don't be mad the wall wasn't built, be glad we didn't end up needing it. The drug costs one is a great litmus test. Normal people go "Oh obviously he's just using the original price before elevation as the baseline for calculating because he loves big sounding numbers and wants any excuse in the world to use as exaggerated sounding figures as possible," get it in 2 seconds, and move on. Then there's you... you point out obviously nothing can decrease more than 100% because then it would be negative and a price can't just be negative, and it's a law you MUST use the EXACT current price as a baseline when calculating a decrease, which means Trump didn't choose a different baseline, that would be against the rules, and on the contrary you're a math genius towering above him, and you bring this up in... the middle of a conversation about the DOJ adjudicating settlement payouts for claims against the government. How does that particular math work? Let's aim for a trumpian 1000% decrease. Say the current price is 100 dollars. What number would that trumpian decrease be? Like, if I'm using a baseline of say 90 dollars, what is the final number that I'm arriving at? 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.) And you complaining about US healthcare... On even less serious note, since I enjoy math puzzles, and now apparently also dissecting logic of stupid people, it seems like Simberto was closest. quotes of trump statements are from AI so may not be perfect. "A pill that costs $10 in London costs $130 in New York or Los Angeles." that would be 1200% increase "A drug that costs $86 in Berlin cost $1,300 in New York." that would be roughly 1400% increase So I would guess in Trump mind if you take away the difference you decreasing by the same percent. May be completely wrong, however this seems most probable. It also sounded like a sloppy description using percentages to me. The original markup was 500%, so when you slash the markup you claim you've reduced it by 400%. But that's sloppy language on reducing the percentage of increase, not the actual price.
Which I do think people know, but the temptation to transition to the dunk phase, or the mock and gawk phase, is great.
|
Amazing how every single conservative in this thread ignored the literal things Trump and RFK Jr. said to make up their own scenario about what they could've possibly hypothetically meant if they said something completely different. It's almost as if being disconnected from reality is an inherent part of being right-wing.
I'm reminded of the Bill Hicks joke about the cops who beat Rodney King got acquitted by testifying "well if you play the footage backwards, we help King up and send him on his way." "Not guilty."
|
It's just Kpop-Salutes all over again. They see and hear what they want to see and hear or they are just blatantly evil and hopefully let themselves get paid handily for the utter bullshit they defend and "understand" (which makes it not less evil, just a bit more understandable).
At this point i'm truely not sure which one it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
