|
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 |
There is nothing partisan about making fun of someone saying something objectively stupid repeatedly.
There is something partisan about defending someone saying something objectively stupid repeatedly.
The only argument is, is Trump actually this stupid, or has he just correctly identified his followers of being this stupid.
|
On May 20 2026 23:16 Billyboy 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? 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.
It depends what baselines you choose and refer to, that's the whole point.
|
On May 21 2026 00:07 Billyboy wrote:
There is nothing partisan about making fun of someone saying something objectively stupid repeatedly.
There is something partisan about defending someone saying something objectively stupid repeatedly.
The only argument is, is Trump actually this stupid, or has he just correctly identified his followers of being this stupid. the answer is C: both.
|
On May 21 2026 00:11 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 23:16 Billyboy 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? 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. It depends what baselines you choose and refer to, that's the whole point.
It sounds like you'll need to consult Ethel and Jason Rockefeller for that information.
|
On May 21 2026 00:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2026 00:11 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 23:16 Billyboy 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? 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. It depends what baselines you choose and refer to, that's the whole point. It sounds like you'll need to consult Ethel and Jason Rockefeller for that information.
Who are only alive today thanks to the blood thinner Plavix, which costs $16 now instead of $756.
|
|
|
On May 20 2026 22:57 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 22:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 22:17 LightSpectra wrote: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:
[quote]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? 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.
You could save yourself that particular embarrassment by realizing they are ignoring your idea that the best way to cure the US continuing moving right would be to elect James Talarico for president in 2028 to shitpost with Sartres about math (granted that's like concentrated catnip for them) instead.
I don't put too much weight on it, but when your electoral plan gets 0 traction among these politics nerds (complimentary) that's not a great start. It's not a national poll or a pitch at a Dem convention, but I have a feeling if someone pitched this at my state party convention in ~a couple weeks, they'd get laughed off the mic.
That's where this stuff is happening (I don't know if you've ever attended one, but we could go into more detail about this part specifically if you'd like). From what I gather talking to people attending this year, you'd sound ridiculous not lining up behind either Harris or Newsom with AOC being the obvious favorite among the "change the party from the inside" faction here.
I think Talarico vs AOC as the best "change them from the inside candidate with a reasonable shot to win in 2028" would be one of the most interesting discussions (even just the rest of you among yourselves without me) about US politics around here in a long time though.
|
On May 20 2026 23:35 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 22:52 Razyda wrote: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:
[quote]
Translation: after this blatant embezzlement falls out of the news cycle because the next blatant act of corruption takes its spot, conservatives like you will pretend it never happened. Oh believe me I'll be calling for impeachment the minute there's proof a president pocketed a BILLION DOLLARS from the Department of Justice. On May 20 2026 02:57 Billyboy wrote:[quote] + Show Spoiler +What are you talking about, look at this list of republican priorities, I’m sure they all still care and expect them.
Doge checks
Tariff checks
Greenland hospital boat
10% app credit cards
1500% cheaper drugs
2 dollar gas
Epstein files
Reopening the Hormuz straight, that is open or closed multiple times daily depending on who you talk to (closed to most actual ships since the war that’s not a war mind you)
Cheaper groceries
Ballroom funded by donors
Wall paid for by Mexico
Those are all still coming for sure, and many more of the promises, better than you even ever imagined. Don’t worry so much.
Oblade, you are up to date and plugged in, mind giving LS a quick update on each and when he can expect them completed? Those priorities sound great the way you sell them. Plugged in, gotcha, yeah I just texted Stephen Miller and he said unless Democrats stop blocking those great ideas you promoted, you'll have to wait until Trump's third term. Take it with a grain of salt though you know how he gets. I get you like them, it’s the snake oil you bought. The crazy part is you keep buying it. Oh you're actually against cheaper groceries, free ballrooms, free walls, cheaper drugs, 2 dollar gas, Greenland hospital ships (?), 10% app credit cards (?), stimulus from reducing government waste, and stimulus from punishing companies that undercut America? Don't I have egg on my face... I didn't realize those were actually bad. On May 20 2026 03:35 Billyboy wrote:
How have the Dems blocked them when you control all levels of government and the judiciary?
You severely overestimate my power. No I’m for most of those things. Just if I was promised them all and it didn’t happen, I would be mad at the people who promised it, not their rivals. And I’d be extra mad if they were all getting themselves rich well I was paying more. But I don’t want to be a peasant to an emperor. So my mindset is impossible for you understand. I’m also not so stupid to believe the next promises. Or dumb enough to believe 1500% decreases in drug costs, other people paying for stuff or most of these vague promises without a plan. You're for most of those things? You spend a lot of time pushing Democrats to team up on this rhetoric, hold some Republican feet to the fire, and make things happen, right? Maybe volunteer their detailed plans for him and everyone to adopt. As a voting American. That'd be a productive activity. Don't be mad the wall wasn't built, be glad we didn't end up needing it. The drug costs one is a great litmus test. Normal people go "Oh obviously he's just using the original price before elevation as the baseline for calculating because he loves big sounding numbers and wants any excuse in the world to use as exaggerated sounding figures as possible," get it in 2 seconds, and move on. Then there's you... you point out obviously nothing can decrease more than 100% because then it would be negative and a price can't just be negative, and it's a law you MUST use the EXACT current price as a baseline when calculating a decrease, which means Trump didn't choose a different baseline, that would be against the rules, and on the contrary you're a math genius towering above him, and you bring this up in... the middle of a conversation about the DOJ adjudicating settlement payouts for claims against the government. How does that particular math work? Let's aim for a trumpian 1000% decrease. Say the current price is 100 dollars. What number would that trumpian decrease be? Like, if I'm using a baseline of say 90 dollars, what is the final number that I'm arriving at? 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.
That extra context of removing a percent increase and sloppily calling it a percent decrease isn't even close to what Trump and RFK Jr. are talking about though. That's an extra step that you just fabricated, but Trump and RFK Jr. don't actually say something like that.
Trump said, quote: “We’re going to get the drug prices down — not 30% or 40%, which would be great. Not 50% or 60%. No, we’re going to get them down 1,000%, 600%, 500%, 1,500%.”
RFK Jr. said, quote: “If you have a $600 drug and you reduce it to $10, that’s a 600% reduction.”
( https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-rfk-jr-losing-fight-math-hearing )
They are not (still mistakenly) claiming that the removal of a 600% increase is the same as a 600% reduction.
They are revealing that they don't even know that 100% of a cost is the entire cost.
|
On May 21 2026 00:17 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2026 00:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2026 00:11 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 23:16 Billyboy 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? 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. It depends what baselines you choose and refer to, that's the whole point. It sounds like you'll need to consult Ethel and Jason Rockefeller for that information. Who are only alive today thanks to the blood thinner Plavix, which costs $16 now instead of $756.
Thanks to Trump's eight million percent discount.
|
On May 21 2026 00:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 23:35 dyhb wrote:On May 20 2026 22:52 Razyda wrote: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:
[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? 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. That extra context of removing a percent increase and sloppily calling it a percent decrease isn't even close to what Trump and RFK Jr. are talking about though. That's an extra step that you just fabricated, but Trump and RFK Jr. don't actually say something like that. Trump said, quote: “We’re going to get the drug prices down — not 30% or 40%, which would be great. Not 50% or 60%. No, we’re going to get them down 1,000%, 600%, 500%, 1,500%.” RFK Jr. said, quote: “If you have a $600 drug and you reduce it to $10, that’s a 600% reduction.” ( https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-rfk-jr-losing-fight-math-hearing ) They are not (still mistakenly) claiming that the removal of a 600% increase is the same as a 600% reduction. They are revealing that they don't even know that 100% of a cost is the entire cost. You’re telling me that they didn’t engage with percentages in a sloppy manner, and your proof is that they’re speaking incorrectly about it. You must have me confused with someone that thinks they’re right to misuse percentages in this way (reduction in cost too). So I think you fully agree with me, unless you meant to say that no drug markup percent was reduced as a result of the present changes.
|
On May 21 2026 00:11 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 23:16 Billyboy 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? 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. It depends what baselines you choose and refer to, that's the whole point.
Ok, pick 100 as the base line and run the math for me.
|
On May 21 2026 00:49 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2026 00:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2026 23:35 dyhb wrote:On May 20 2026 22:52 Razyda wrote: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:
[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? 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. That extra context of removing a percent increase and sloppily calling it a percent decrease isn't even close to what Trump and RFK Jr. are talking about though. That's an extra step that you just fabricated, but Trump and RFK Jr. don't actually say something like that. Trump said, quote: “We’re going to get the drug prices down — not 30% or 40%, which would be great. Not 50% or 60%. No, we’re going to get them down 1,000%, 600%, 500%, 1,500%.” RFK Jr. said, quote: “If you have a $600 drug and you reduce it to $10, that’s a 600% reduction.” ( https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-rfk-jr-losing-fight-math-hearing ) They are not (still mistakenly) claiming that the removal of a 600% increase is the same as a 600% reduction. They are revealing that they don't even know that 100% of a cost is the entire cost. You’re telling me that they didn’t engage with percentages in a sloppy manner, and your proof is that they’re speaking incorrectly about it. You must have me confused with someone that thinks they’re right to misuse percentages in this way (reduction in cost too). So I think you fully agree with me, unless you meant to say that no drug markup percent was reduced as a result of the present changes.
How can you hold anyone accountable for what they say? Are they not just being sloppy with their words?
|
On May 21 2026 00:49 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2026 00:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2026 23:35 dyhb wrote:On May 20 2026 22:52 Razyda wrote: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:
[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? 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. That extra context of removing a percent increase and sloppily calling it a percent decrease isn't even close to what Trump and RFK Jr. are talking about though. That's an extra step that you just fabricated, but Trump and RFK Jr. don't actually say something like that. Trump said, quote: “We’re going to get the drug prices down — not 30% or 40%, which would be great. Not 50% or 60%. No, we’re going to get them down 1,000%, 600%, 500%, 1,500%.” RFK Jr. said, quote: “If you have a $600 drug and you reduce it to $10, that’s a 600% reduction.” ( https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-rfk-jr-losing-fight-math-hearing ) They are not (still mistakenly) claiming that the removal of a 600% increase is the same as a 600% reduction. They are revealing that they don't even know that 100% of a cost is the entire cost. You’re telling me that they didn’t engage with percentages in a sloppy manner, and your proof is that they’re speaking incorrectly about it. You must have me confused with someone that thinks they’re right to misuse percentages in this way (reduction in cost too). So I think you fully agree with me, unless you meant to say that no drug markup percent was reduced as a result of the present changes.
You gave an interpretation for why they made the mistakes they did, but you needed to invent extra steps and context that neither Trump nor RFK Jr. used, to reduce their staggeringly fundamental math errors to something merely "sloppy" yet understandable. Your extra massaging of their statements isn't justified, because nowhere did they say that their 600% decreases were based on removing percent increases. That was all you.
|
On May 21 2026 00:49 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2026 00:11 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 23:16 Billyboy 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? 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. It depends what baselines you choose and refer to, that's the whole point. Ok, pick 100 as the base line and run the math for me.
He's definitely gonna answer the question this time.
|
On May 21 2026 00:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2026 00:17 oBlade wrote:On May 21 2026 00:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2026 00:11 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 23:16 Billyboy 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:
[quote]
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. It depends what baselines you choose and refer to, that's the whole point. It sounds like you'll need to consult Ethel and Jason Rockefeller for that information. Who are only alive today thanks to the blood thinner Plavix, which costs $16 now instead of $756. Thanks to Trump's eight million percent discount.
I personally like lower drug prices. It'd be healthy to maybe stroll around the park and breathe some fresh air until you start to like lower drug prices more than you dislike the way the person who lowered them talks about it (the buffoon from Queens who banana peeled his way into being a billionaire president who lowers drug prices). My guess is the only way the person you voted for could have gotten drug prices to fall is if she hung them from a coconut tree.
|
On May 21 2026 01:09 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2026 00:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2026 00:17 oBlade wrote:On May 21 2026 00:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2026 00:11 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2026 23:16 Billyboy 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:
[quote]
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. It depends what baselines you choose and refer to, that's the whole point. It sounds like you'll need to consult Ethel and Jason Rockefeller for that information. Who are only alive today thanks to the blood thinner Plavix, which costs $16 now instead of $756. Thanks to Trump's eight million percent discount. I personally like lower drug prices. It'd be healthy to maybe stroll around the park and breathe some fresh air until you start to like lower drug prices more than you dislike the way the person who lowered them talks about it (the buffoon from Queens who banana peeled his way into being a billionaire president who lowers drug prices). My guess is the only way the person you voted for could have gotten drug prices to fall is if she hung them from a coconut tree.
Another resource for you: https://www.bafound.org/understanding-brain-aneurysms
|
On May 21 2026 01:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2026 00:49 dyhb wrote:On May 21 2026 00:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2026 23:35 dyhb wrote:On May 20 2026 22:52 Razyda wrote: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:
[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? 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. That extra context of removing a percent increase and sloppily calling it a percent decrease isn't even close to what Trump and RFK Jr. are talking about though. That's an extra step that you just fabricated, but Trump and RFK Jr. don't actually say something like that. Trump said, quote: “We’re going to get the drug prices down — not 30% or 40%, which would be great. Not 50% or 60%. No, we’re going to get them down 1,000%, 600%, 500%, 1,500%.” RFK Jr. said, quote: “If you have a $600 drug and you reduce it to $10, that’s a 600% reduction.” ( https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-rfk-jr-losing-fight-math-hearing ) They are not (still mistakenly) claiming that the removal of a 600% increase is the same as a 600% reduction. They are revealing that they don't even know that 100% of a cost is the entire cost. You’re telling me that they didn’t engage with percentages in a sloppy manner, and your proof is that they’re speaking incorrectly about it. You must have me confused with someone that thinks they’re right to misuse percentages in this way (reduction in cost too). So I think you fully agree with me, unless you meant to say that no drug markup percent was reduced as a result of the present changes. You gave an interpretation for why they made the mistakes they did, but you needed to invent extra steps and context that neither Trump nor RFK Jr. used, to reduce their staggeringly fundamental math errors to something merely "sloppy" yet understandable. Your extra massaging of their statements isn't justified, because nowhere did they say that their 600% decreases were based on removing percent increases. That was all you. You have a great problem in explaining where the mistakes originated? I honestly thought we had teachers here that both know what’s wrong and right on math, but spend considerable time with students analyzing what they did wrong and why it was wrong. I’m sorry, teachers actually add context improperly to their students work which isn’t justified.
Since you said “why they made the mistakes,” I think I have to go very basic for you. He likes talking about huge decreases and big numbers of savings, no matter the wrong steps to get there. Now are you still too proud to admit you agree with the why?
|
On May 21 2026 01:37 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2026 01:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2026 00:49 dyhb wrote:On May 21 2026 00:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2026 23:35 dyhb wrote:On May 20 2026 22:52 Razyda wrote: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:
[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? 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. That extra context of removing a percent increase and sloppily calling it a percent decrease isn't even close to what Trump and RFK Jr. are talking about though. That's an extra step that you just fabricated, but Trump and RFK Jr. don't actually say something like that. Trump said, quote: “We’re going to get the drug prices down — not 30% or 40%, which would be great. Not 50% or 60%. No, we’re going to get them down 1,000%, 600%, 500%, 1,500%.” RFK Jr. said, quote: “If you have a $600 drug and you reduce it to $10, that’s a 600% reduction.” ( https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-rfk-jr-losing-fight-math-hearing ) They are not (still mistakenly) claiming that the removal of a 600% increase is the same as a 600% reduction. They are revealing that they don't even know that 100% of a cost is the entire cost. You’re telling me that they didn’t engage with percentages in a sloppy manner, and your proof is that they’re speaking incorrectly about it. You must have me confused with someone that thinks they’re right to misuse percentages in this way (reduction in cost too). So I think you fully agree with me, unless you meant to say that no drug markup percent was reduced as a result of the present changes. You gave an interpretation for why they made the mistakes they did, but you needed to invent extra steps and context that neither Trump nor RFK Jr. used, to reduce their staggeringly fundamental math errors to something merely "sloppy" yet understandable. Your extra massaging of their statements isn't justified, because nowhere did they say that their 600% decreases were based on removing percent increases. That was all you. You have a great problem in explaining where the mistakes originated? I honestly thought we had teachers here that both know what’s wrong and right on math, but spend considerable time with students analyzing what they did wrong and why it was wrong. I’m sorry, teachers actually add context improperly to their students work which isn’t justified. Since you said “why they made the mistakes,” I think I have to go very basic for you. He likes talking about huge decreases and big numbers of savings, no matter the wrong steps to get there. Now are you still too proud to admit you agree with the why?
I would be a bit worried if my president/prime minister used math that doesn't exist because "it sounds big".
|
Northern Ireland26858 Posts
On May 21 2026 01:37 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2026 01:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2026 00:49 dyhb wrote:On May 21 2026 00:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2026 23:35 dyhb wrote:On May 20 2026 22:52 Razyda wrote: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:
[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? 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. That extra context of removing a percent increase and sloppily calling it a percent decrease isn't even close to what Trump and RFK Jr. are talking about though. That's an extra step that you just fabricated, but Trump and RFK Jr. don't actually say something like that. Trump said, quote: “We’re going to get the drug prices down — not 30% or 40%, which would be great. Not 50% or 60%. No, we’re going to get them down 1,000%, 600%, 500%, 1,500%.” RFK Jr. said, quote: “If you have a $600 drug and you reduce it to $10, that’s a 600% reduction.” ( https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-rfk-jr-losing-fight-math-hearing ) They are not (still mistakenly) claiming that the removal of a 600% increase is the same as a 600% reduction. They are revealing that they don't even know that 100% of a cost is the entire cost. You’re telling me that they didn’t engage with percentages in a sloppy manner, and your proof is that they’re speaking incorrectly about it. You must have me confused with someone that thinks they’re right to misuse percentages in this way (reduction in cost too). So I think you fully agree with me, unless you meant to say that no drug markup percent was reduced as a result of the present changes. You gave an interpretation for why they made the mistakes they did, but you needed to invent extra steps and context that neither Trump nor RFK Jr. used, to reduce their staggeringly fundamental math errors to something merely "sloppy" yet understandable. Your extra massaging of their statements isn't justified, because nowhere did they say that their 600% decreases were based on removing percent increases. That was all you. You have a great problem in explaining where the mistakes originated? I honestly thought we had teachers here that both know what’s wrong and right on math, but spend considerable time with students analyzing what they did wrong and why it was wrong. I’m sorry, teachers actually add context improperly to their students work which isn’t justified. Since you said “why they made the mistakes,” I think I have to go very basic for you. He likes talking about huge decreases and big numbers of savings, no matter the wrong steps to get there. Now are you still too proud to admit you agree with the why?
So fucking what? It’s total nonsense whatever the motivation
|
Canada11524 Posts
On May 20 2026 21:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
Not really. Rand Paul over Fetterman is interesting to me. I wonder if you're alone on that? How do you identify politically?
Oh. Well. If you don't have any in mind, why is it such a big deal that hardly anyone else in this thread does either?
It's not that I necessarily align with Rand Paul on every issue, it's more that as far as I can tell post-stroke, Fetterman is effectively MAGA. Rand Paul at least has principles though he is more pragmatic than his father. And I respect that combination: real principles but pragmatic.
Political alignment- centre-right, but that's in the Canadian context.
So provincially, I've always voted for the BC Liberals, our centre-right party... until it collapsed and only then switched to the new BC Conservative party which was previously filled with a bunch of yahoos and fringe candidates. Rudstad (former BC Liberal) has cleaned some of them out but there's probably more fringe candidates that need turfing. Still voted for them but kinda hoped they wouldn't win so there would be more time to consolidate.
Federally, I've voted Alliance and Conservative (would have voted Reform had I been old enough) except for the end of Harper's term, I didn't like some of the corrupt practices and I really didn't like that the Conservatives were attacking the bottom tiers of Voter ID because of 'anomalies' which turned out to just mean user input errors with spelling discrepancies rather than voter fraud. Also, in their last gasps the party was promising strange things like a 'barbaric cultural practices' tipline... 911 wouldn't do? So I voted NDP which had swung into the centre under Mulcair, promising a balanced budget... Instead we got Trudeau and an endless parade of conflicts of interest and corruption and where debt doesn't matter because of modern monetary theory... whoops! I could see myself voting for Carney if he continues to steer into the centre as he is what I would want for my Conservative party leader.
Corruption and voter access are red lines for me. I will vote against my own party to clean house as the health of the democracy as whole is most important to me. And I can more likely see that in Rand Paul (who is further right than me) far more than a politician who supports Trump above all, which I see in Fetterman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
