|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 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?
You inventing bullshit as an explanation for Trump's ignorance is not the same thing as Trump citing any sort of context to explain his misuse of percentages. As I already wrote:
On May 20 2026 20:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2026 20:43 Acrofales 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. Well, it is probably still math. There's no doubt an equation you can use to obtain a "9000% drop". The problem isn't the math, it's the language. Normal usage is that you start at 100%, so a 9000% percent drop would end up at -8900% of your starting point, which is absolutely nonsensical. Using the end point as your baseline for the rate of change calculation you could end up at a 9000% drop and it'd make sense mathematically, but that isn't how people talk about perceptual changes. Inventing a wildly different equation that has even less to do with percentual changes could also have a perfectly valid result of 9000%. The problem is matching the equation to some real-world phenomenon in a way that makes sense. You have 3 apples and give 2 to Johnny. How many apples do you have could have the answer 17 if you invent the extra context that the 3 apples were actually only the ones in your hand, but there's another 16 in a basket on the table. Did nobody mention that?! Yeah it (tautologically) becomes mathematically valid if you redefine terms and add in a whole bunch of other information that turns the invalid nonsense into a clear mathematically valid idea. That's kind of like how "immigrants are stealing and eating your pets" is totally true if you change "immigrants", "stealing", "eating", and "pets" into other words that create an actually true statement (and maybe redefine "are", "and", and "your" if you really want to go full-on Jordan Peterson).
|
On May 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.
To be fair it is funny, so why not have a little laugh?
|
Northern Ireland26858 Posts
On May 21 2026 01:58 Razyda 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. To be fair it is funny, so why not have a little laugh?
Because it’s fucking stupid? There is that
|
On May 21 2026 01:59 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2026 01:58 Razyda 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. To be fair it is funny, so why not have a little laugh? Because it’s fucking stupid? There is that
Who said stupid cant be funny?
I find the idea that every time I buy medicine I get paid money for it, rather amusing.
|
On May 21 2026 01:59 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2026 01:58 Razyda 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. To be fair it is funny, so why not have a little laugh? Because it’s fucking stupid? There is that
Also, it is an utterly embarrassing thing for a head of state to say. If any of the leading members of my government would be incapable of doing basic maths, i would be very sad. And somewhat embarrassed, especially if they were people i voted for.
This is stuff i teach to 13-year-old children, and most of them understand it. An adult who wants to run a nation should be able to do basic percentages. Or, if they somehow fuck it up, apologize and correct their mistake instead of doubling and trippling down as if they had invented new maths, or were doing maths in a different, but equally valid way.
It is also completely symptomatic for basically everything with this fucking stupid administration. They say indefensibly stupid shit, then they double down, and their supporters always back them. No matter how obviously wrong the thing they said is.
|
On May 21 2026 00:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
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.
GH, people don't ignore you because they agree or disagree with you, they ignore you because you've burned through all the good faith people have given you six times over.
|
Advice frequently given to new lawyers: "If you have the law, hammer the law. If you have the facts, hammer the facts. If you have neither the law nor the facts,
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.
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?
hammer the table."
|
On May 21 2026 01:47 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +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. + Show Spoiler +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.
Lots of reasons, but it's mostly to point out that the notion of not being "vote blue no matter who" is a hypothetical without real politicians they could apply it to. Whereas I obviously don't vote blue no matter who
Fetterman has been something of an embarrassment for Democrats, but he still votes with them far more than Rand Paul. But for a Canadian Conservative that would probably vote for a sane Republican party (if you were in the US) that might make sense? For someone that would still support Democrats (which is generally who I'm talking to) over an ostensibly sane Republican party (I don't even know what people here imagine that was in the US?) that seems counter productive at best.
|
On May 21 2026 02:47 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2026 00:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2026 22:57 LightSpectra wrote: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:
[quote]
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. GH, people don't ignore you because they agree or disagree with you, they ignore you because you've burned through all the good faith people have given you six times over.
Again, they're ignoring what you identified as your/the best idea to prevent the US from sliding further to the right which we'd think they'd find pretty important. I'm sure they have lots of "reasons", but them not discussing it with you/each other isn't on me.
They probably also think it's pretty silly.
|
Canada11524 Posts
It's more like Rand Paul when it comes down to the last, I trust Rand Paul will be like Mike Pence and at the last moment follow the constitution and not Trump. I have no such trust in Fetterman. But I could be wrong. When it gets down to the individual senator or representative, I'm less confident except for some of the high profile ones as there are a lot of them.
|
My favorite Rand Paul fact is that he says universal healthcare is slavery, but also, he flew to Canada for an operation because it's cheaper. By his own belief system he'll resort to slave labor to save a few bucks.
That's probably the most memorable instance of his absurd hypocrisy, but it's not the only one. Point being, I don't think he'd ever stand in the way of Republican autocracy if given the chance. He just publicly beefs with Trump for same reason John McCain did, he doesn't like him.
|
On May 21 2026 01:58 Razyda 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 $1,300 in New York." that would be roughly 1400% increase So I would guess in Trump mind if you take away the difference you decreasing by the same percent. May be completely wrong, however this seems most probable. It also sounded like a sloppy description using percentages to me. The original markup was 500%, so when you slash the markup you claim you've reduced it by 400%. But that's sloppy language on reducing the percentage of increase, not the actual price. Which I do think people know, but the temptation to transition to the dunk phase, or the mock and gawk phase, is great. To be fair it is funny, so why not have a little laugh? I don’t really know! It’s like there’s some people big-mad over others not being outraged enough in their posts. They appoint themselves inquisitors of Trump apologia and if I use words they don’t, my verdict is guilty and my sentence is excommunication from polite discussion. If you can’t laugh at the political parade, you’re just going to end up a frustrated and a bitter old crank. And Trump has another two and a half years in office, and he’ll probably be equally insane outside of office if people are still focused on Trump at that point.
So you might as well enjoy the 5,900% savings on your formerly 600$ drugs.
|
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 $10, that’s a 600% reduction.” ( https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-rfk-jr-losing-fight-math-hearing ) They are not (still mistakenly) claiming that the removal of a 600% increase is the same as a 600% reduction. They are revealing that they don't even know that 100% of a cost is the entire cost.
Once again, even this quote of RFK makes no sense. An increase from 10$ to 600$ is a 5900% increase. What I understood is that Trump uses the opposite for decreases so he would call a decrease from 600$ to 10$ a 5900% decrease ?
So what does RFK mean by "a 600% reduction" ? Did he mean 6000% ? Does he mean that the price is divided by 60 and 60=6000%In that case, would a 100% decrease mean the price hasn't changed at all ?
Can an expert on maga math (such as oblade) enlighten me on how that math works ?
|
|
|
On May 21 2026 04:47 Geiko 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 $10, that’s a 600% reduction.” ( https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-rfk-jr-losing-fight-math-hearing ) They are not (still mistakenly) claiming that the removal of a 600% increase is the same as a 600% reduction. They are revealing that they don't even know that 100% of a cost is the entire cost. Once again, even this quote of RFK makes no sense. An increase from 10$ to 600$ is a 5900% increase. What I understood is that Trump uses the opposite for decreases so he would call a decrease from 600$ to 10$ a 5900% decrease ? So what does RFK mean by "a 600% reduction" ? Did he mean 6000% ? Does he mean that the price is divided by 60 and 60=6000%In that case, would a 100% decrease mean the price hasn't changed at all ?
He is indeed pretty dumb. Happy birthday!
|
On May 21 2026 04:31 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2026 01:58 Razyda 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 $1,300 in New York." that would be roughly 1400% increase So I would guess in Trump mind if you take away the difference you decreasing by the same percent. May be completely wrong, however this seems most probable. It also sounded like a sloppy description using percentages to me. The original markup was 500%, so when you slash the markup you claim you've reduced it by 400%. But that's sloppy language on reducing the percentage of increase, not the actual price. Which I do think people know, but the temptation to transition to the dunk phase, or the mock and gawk phase, is great. To be fair it is funny, so why not have a little laugh? I don’t really know! It’s like there’s some people big-mad over others not being outraged enough in their posts. They appoint themselves inquisitors of Trump apologia and if I use words they don’t, my verdict is guilty and my sentence is excommunication from polite discussion. If you can’t laugh at the political parade, you’re just going to end up a frustrated and a bitter old crank. And Trump has another two and a half years in office, and he’ll probably be equally insane outside of office if people are still focused on Trump at that point. So you might as well enjoy the 5,900% savings on your formerly 600$ drugs.
Don't worry, nobody is actually mad that you say such radioactively dumb shit on the regular. As long as this website remains on the internet it'll be a permanent testimony to how brain damaged you have to be to be a modern conservative.
|
On May 21 2026 02:05 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2026 01:59 WombaT wrote:On May 21 2026 01:58 Razyda 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. To be fair it is funny, so why not have a little laugh? Because it’s fucking stupid? There is that Who said stupid cant be funny? I find the idea that every time I buy medicine I get paid money for it, rather amusing.
This is us having a laugh at the stupidity of the man and absurdity of people defending it as smart, or just a different kind of math.
Math is not subjective, which is what some of us love about it.
|
On May 21 2026 05:08 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2026 04:31 dyhb wrote:On May 21 2026 01:58 Razyda 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 $1,300 in New York." that would be roughly 1400% increase So I would guess in Trump mind if you take away the difference you decreasing by the same percent. May be completely wrong, however this seems most probable. It also sounded like a sloppy description using percentages to me. The original markup was 500%, so when you slash the markup you claim you've reduced it by 400%. But that's sloppy language on reducing the percentage of increase, not the actual price. Which I do think people know, but the temptation to transition to the dunk phase, or the mock and gawk phase, is great. To be fair it is funny, so why not have a little laugh? I don’t really know! It’s like there’s some people big-mad over others not being outraged enough in their posts. They appoint themselves inquisitors of Trump apologia and if I use words they don’t, my verdict is guilty and my sentence is excommunication from polite discussion. If you can’t laugh at the political parade, you’re just going to end up a frustrated and a bitter old crank. And Trump has another two and a half years in office, and he’ll probably be equally insane outside of office if people are still focused on Trump at that point. So you might as well enjoy the 5,900% savings on your formerly 600$ drugs. Don't worry, nobody is actually mad that you say such radioactively dumb shit on the regular. As long as this website remains on the internet it'll be a permanent testimony to how brain damaged you have to be to be a modern conservative. Yes, yes when I say sloppy and incorrect instead of #%^*, all the not-mad people on the forum say it’s radioactively dumb shit and brain damage. Totally normal response. Granted, you can’t even admit to the “why” of why Trump is doing it, because that would mean agreeing with me!
|
Northern Ireland26858 Posts
On May 21 2026 04:31 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2026 01:58 Razyda 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 $1,300 in New York." that would be roughly 1400% increase So I would guess in Trump mind if you take away the difference you decreasing by the same percent. May be completely wrong, however this seems most probable. It also sounded like a sloppy description using percentages to me. The original markup was 500%, so when you slash the markup you claim you've reduced it by 400%. But that's sloppy language on reducing the percentage of increase, not the actual price. Which I do think people know, but the temptation to transition to the dunk phase, or the mock and gawk phase, is great. To be fair it is funny, so why not have a little laugh? I don’t really know! It’s like there’s some people big-mad over others not being outraged enough in their posts. They appoint themselves inquisitors of Trump apologia and if I use words they don’t, my verdict is guilty and my sentence is excommunication from polite discussion. If you can’t laugh at the political parade, you’re just going to end up a frustrated and a bitter old crank. And Trump has another two and a half years in office, and he’ll probably be equally insane outside of office if people are still focused on Trump at that point. So you might as well enjoy the 5,900% savings on your formerly 600$ drugs.
Because it’s bloody daft, and seemingly some people do take such wonkiness seriously. If that weren’t the case, people would have a grand auld laugh about it
I recall for example ‘Chemical/Comical’ Ali chatting absolute shite about Iraq expelling the invaders when you could actually hear the bombs of the Coalition of the Willing going off in the background
It’s somewhat less amusing if it can seemingly continue in perpetuity and folks can go all ThisIsFine.jpeg and ‘hey just have a laugh about it’
|
Northern Ireland26858 Posts
On May 21 2026 04:49 Geiko wrote:
double
Bon anniversaire!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
