|
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 June 03 2026 19:37 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 12:26 oBlade wrote:On June 03 2026 04:00 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2026 03:28 oBlade wrote:On June 03 2026 02:50 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2026 00:49 oBlade wrote:On June 03 2026 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm accused of murdering my wife with a gun. While a warrant is out for my arrest and to collect all my belongings for evidence, I instead decide to turn in my gun, registered to me, with only my fingerprints on it, with one bullet missing from the clip. "I'm innocent, why else would I turn in my gun if it incriminates me?"
The jury acquits me because people agree with your mentality. What do you suppose would have happened had Trump actually vetoed the files containing the smoking gun of rape which you alone found? For one, you’d be here telling us that actually it’s precisely because he vetoed them that he’s clearly innocent. After all, a guilty man would try to appear innocent by releasing them. Only an innocent man wouldn’t care. The question was already answered. It would go back to Congress. For me personally, once the overwhelming majority of both houses of Congress came back voting to release the files anyway, despite the Republicans getting no credit because it was all part of Biden's master plan, I'd just look at the evidence. Same as now. Look at the evidence. Then seeing there's no smoking guns, and it's impossible to prove a nonspecific negative, I'd move on. Especially I'd make sure even if I believed X or Y in the Epstein files was a child rapist, I wouldn't go around calling anyone who wasn't cheering the immediate lynching of X and Y a rape apologist. I'd grow up connect the dots and come to the realization "Oh, this person isn't against lynching X and Y because they like defending child rapists, it's the exact opposite, it's because they don't think there's any evidence X or Y is a child rapist." Yeah, no, I’m not going to assume good faith from you. I don’t think you do think he’s not a child rapist, just like I do think you know exactly what salute Elon was doing. You can continue to protest that you’re just a well intentioned guy who reached different conclusions than the rest of us from the same evidence but unfortunately for you, we’ve seen your posts. We know you well enough to know that child rape simply isn’t a deal breaker for you. "I know you're in favor of child rape because Elon Musk's arm was at a 45 degree angle for half a second years ago and you also didn't adopt my deluded hysteria about that." Good one buddy. The problem with trying to tell people what they think is you'll be constantly wrong because they know what they think better than you do. On June 03 2026 06:58 Billyboy wrote:
I guess we can officially end the is or is not Mike Flynn an agent for Russia. He’s now officially registered as a foreign agent, brining down 100k a month.
Silly Dems and their Russian hoax take that!….
Also if you have not read or seen Trump explain that there is a B at the end of dumb and most people don’t know that, take a look. God what an embarrassment that he leads the most powerful country in the world. Even more embarrassing is the people who think he’s smart! So you look this one up and he registered as an AGENT... for the Republic of Srpska in the Balkans in 2025. What effect this has on Russia investigations from 2016-2018 is anyone's guess. Milorad Dodik is as close as you can get to being a Russian/Serbian puppet and a head of their puppet state as possible, Russians paying Flynn through Republika Srpska makes absolute sense, and Republika Srpska paying $ 100 k a month while having a GDP per capita of around $9 k makes no sense. Of course, you got your marching orders of "akshualy, it's not Russia" so you had to regurgitate them, but I wanted to point this out to people who might see your post and think you were accidentally honest. Speaking of insane corruption and dishonesty, Bill Pulte, a moron nepo baby has been named as the new acting DNI chief, one of the most senior positions in government is being filled by a guy who has 0 experience in intelligence, foreign politics or law enforcement, but plenty of experience in grifting meme stocks and paying people to follow him on Twitter. It's so fun that at the time of a war with a country with terrorist cells all around the world who's last resort is asymetrical warfare the DNI is headed by this creature:
Reading Republican senators talk
About this guy is hilarious, they are trying so hard to seem credible but also avoid Trumps wrath, from an objectively terrible pick, regardless of political affiliation.
On June 03 2026 22:19 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Pretty brutal that Trump and his ambassador to Canada are celebrating its economic failures. Aren't Canada and the USA supposed to be allies? Doesn't Trump want to see the USA's allies succeed? https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/donald-trump-revives-51st-state-threats-after-canada-slips-into-technical-recession/Show nested quote +Trump took to Truth Social Monday night to post the words “51st State” with a link to a Bloomberg news article titled “Canada Dips Into Technical Recession for First Time Since 2020”. It is hilarious watching the left wing Canadian media run cover for the ruling Liberal government by labelling Canada's economic performance a "technical" recession. Canada is the only G7 nation in a recession.. end of story guys. Some big name DOC in Montreal is leaving for the USA due to "antisemitism". I don't know about Montreal, but in Toronto the antisemitism is being way over played. I highly suspect the antisemitism in Montreal is being over played as well. Its worse in Montreal, 50% worse for something that's small is not a biggie. https://montrealgazette.com/news/health/chief-heart-surgeon-jewish-general-hospital-quits-quebec-antisemitism-montreal/The best DRs that are specialists in Canada often leave for the USA not just for the money, but for the autonomy hospital admins can give them to get even better in their chosen specialization. So its not all "anti semitism". This DR is prolly leaving for a myriad of reasons. However, none of that makes for a shocking headline because its been happening for 90 years. This Doc is prolly getting an entire support system for his work and more autonomy over patient selection. He is prolly getting his own personal hospital wing. LOL. It is pretty myopic of people to think Canadians just leave for the USA ... "for the money". That just ain't true. My American customers are far more willing to break new ground on new products. My Canadian customers only want to use software that is already fully established with a proven track record. My Canadian customers play it so safe its boring.
Liberals are not Left wing. Under Carney they are center right on everything but social. How do you not know this?
Not wasting my time with the rest of your nonsense, especially on the wrong thread.
|
On June 03 2026 15:20 Velr wrote:
In what world do you life?
If Trump voters would care that Trump is a criminal, rapist, conman of any sort, they wouldn't have voted for him the first time, let alone a second and third time.
There is so much proven dirt on Trump, by conventional wisdom he shouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell to be elected to a local council in bumfuckistan.
Instead the Maggats ate the "Lawfare" talking point hook, line and sinker. This is the fallacy that because such voters exist, every voter is like this. I'm sure it's comfortable to live in such a black and white, fairy tale story world, but politics plays out in the real world. Relatively small swings of voters away from Trump were decisive in 2020 (and they outnumbered the small swings from Clinton voters onto Trump) in key states like Georgia and Pennsylvania. The same thing was true about swings from Biden back to Trump in 2024. These voters wouldn't exist if 2016 established a "Maggat" voter that eats talking points.
I won't waste too much time on this subject, since the original point was on whether there's Trump bombshells in unreleased documents. People will have to find their own way to changing their mind on swing voters, if they're open to changing their mind.
|
On June 03 2026 23:33 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 15:20 Velr wrote:
In what world do you life?
If Trump voters would care that Trump is a criminal, rapist, conman of any sort, they wouldn't have voted for him the first time, let alone a second and third time.
There is so much proven dirt on Trump, by conventional wisdom he shouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell to be elected to a local council in bumfuckistan.
Instead the Maggats ate the "Lawfare" talking point hook, line and sinker. This is the fallacy that because such voters exist, every voter is like this. I'm sure it's comfortable to live in such a black and white, fairy tale story world, but politics plays out in the real world. Relatively small swings of voters away from Trump were decisive in 2020 (and they outnumbered the small swings from Clinton voters onto Trump) in key states like Georgia and Pennsylvania. The same thing was true about swings from Biden back to Trump in 2024. These voters wouldn't exist if 2016 established a "Maggat" voter that eats talking points. I won't waste too much time on this subject, since the original point was on whether there's Trump bombshells in unreleased documents. People will have to find their own way to changing their mind on swing voters, if they're open to changing their mind.
Nope, the original post was about Trump primaried everyone who faught to release the files, like Trump campaigned on.
|
On June 03 2026 23:33 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 15:20 Velr wrote:
In what world do you life?
If Trump voters would care that Trump is a criminal, rapist, conman of any sort, they wouldn't have voted for him the first time, let alone a second and third time.
There is so much proven dirt on Trump, by conventional wisdom he shouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell to be elected to a local council in bumfuckistan.
Instead the Maggats ate the "Lawfare" talking point hook, line and sinker. This is the fallacy that because such voters exist, every voter is like this. I'm sure it's comfortable to live in such a black and white, fairy tale story world, but politics plays out in the real world. Relatively small swings of voters away from Trump were decisive in 2020 (and they outnumbered the small swings from Clinton voters onto Trump) in key states like Georgia and Pennsylvania. The same thing was true about swings from Biden back to Trump in 2024. These voters wouldn't exist if 2016 established a "Maggat" voter that eats talking points.
Sure, but those back-and-forth swing voters are the exception, not the rule, hence why you correctly pointed out their "relatively small" number. The vast majority of 2016 Trump voters also voted for Trump in 2020 and 2024.
Also, regardless of how many times someone has voted for Trump, Velr is correct that the Trump voter clearly either doesn't care that Trump is a criminal conman (it's not a disqualifying factor), or the Trump voter is so ignorant that they don't even realize/believe that Trump is a criminal conman.
|
Most of Trumps voters voted for him 3 times. They voted for the guy after his first catastrophic presidency and they votet for him again after Jan 6th. A few just stayed home once.
There is nothing the guy could do, that would make them change their minds. At the latest they will/would change their minds in favor of him again once the democrats candidate has a "strange laugh" or whatever absolute nonsense they can come up with to still vote for him.
My vision is black and white because this stuff is plain black and white. If you decide to vote for this openly corrupt cretin you are part of the bad guys, in the fairy tale and in reality.
|
On June 03 2026 23:51 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 23:33 dyhb wrote:On June 03 2026 15:20 Velr wrote:
In what world do you life?
If Trump voters would care that Trump is a criminal, rapist, conman of any sort, they wouldn't have voted for him the first time, let alone a second and third time.
There is so much proven dirt on Trump, by conventional wisdom he shouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell to be elected to a local council in bumfuckistan.
Instead the Maggats ate the "Lawfare" talking point hook, line and sinker. This is the fallacy that because such voters exist, every voter is like this. I'm sure it's comfortable to live in such a black and white, fairy tale story world, but politics plays out in the real world. Relatively small swings of voters away from Trump were decisive in 2020 (and they outnumbered the small swings from Clinton voters onto Trump) in key states like Georgia and Pennsylvania. The same thing was true about swings from Biden back to Trump in 2024. These voters wouldn't exist if 2016 established a "Maggat" voter that eats talking points. I won't waste too much time on this subject, since the original point was on whether there's Trump bombshells in unreleased documents. People will have to find their own way to changing their mind on swing voters, if they're open to changing their mind. Nope, the original post was about Trump primaried everyone who faught to release the files, like Trump campaigned on. I responded to that post too, but you should see that I quoted a different post in my post.
On June 04 2026 00:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 23:33 dyhb wrote:On June 03 2026 15:20 Velr wrote:
In what world do you life?
If Trump voters would care that Trump is a criminal, rapist, conman of any sort, they wouldn't have voted for him the first time, let alone a second and third time.
There is so much proven dirt on Trump, by conventional wisdom he shouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell to be elected to a local council in bumfuckistan.
Instead the Maggats ate the "Lawfare" talking point hook, line and sinker. This is the fallacy that because such voters exist, every voter is like this. I'm sure it's comfortable to live in such a black and white, fairy tale story world, but politics plays out in the real world. Relatively small swings of voters away from Trump were decisive in 2020 (and they outnumbered the small swings from Clinton voters onto Trump) in key states like Georgia and Pennsylvania. The same thing was true about swings from Biden back to Trump in 2024. These voters wouldn't exist if 2016 established a "Maggat" voter that eats talking points. Sure, but those back-and-forth swing voters are the exception, not the rule, hence why you correctly pointed out their "relatively small" number. The vast majority of 2016 Trump voters also voted for Trump in 2020 and 2024. Also, regardless of how many times someone has voted for Trump, Velr is correct that the Trump voter clearly either doesn't care that Trump is a criminal conman (it's not a disqualifying factor), or the Trump voter is so ignorant that they don't even realize/believe that Trump is a criminal conman. If you for a second forget how close elections are decided, I'm sure talking about the rule versus the exception to the rule makes sense to you. Now, tell me, are you interested in winning elections, or is the only thing that brings you to the table how unfair or morally irresponsible it is that more people don't change parties each election?
doesn't care that Trump is a criminal conman (it's not a disqualifying factor) It's also fallacious to conflate "doesn't care" with "disqualifying." That's more similar to a single-issue voter. Do they care about the candidate's position on abortion? Sure, but maybe they won't make their position on abortion the particular thing that makes them vote "No" against all the rest. It goes into the basket with the 2-3 other important things that the candidate does well or poorly on.
On June 04 2026 00:00 Velr wrote:
Most of Trumps voters voted for him 3 times. They voted for the guy after his first catastrophic presidency and they votet for him again after Jan 6th. A few just stayed home once.
There is nothing the guy could do, that would make them change their minds. At the latest they will/would change their minds in favor of him again once the democrats candidate has a "strange laugh" or whatever absolute nonsense they can come up with to still vote for him.
My vision is black and white because this stuff is plain black and white. If you decide to vote for this openly corrupt cretin you are part of the bad guys, in the fairy tale and in reality. I'm just going to point out how stupid it is to characterize all Trump voters by 3-time-voters, and how much more stupid it is to predict a hypothetical reveal of minor abuse in connection with Epstein from things like Carroll.
I don't know in what universe you think focusing on people that never change their mind is useful to you, when you obviously know that recent elections were literally decided by people that did?
I'm sure there's some group of Republicans on different forums whining that there's this segment of voters that Vote Blue No Matter Who, and how unfair it is, and how this and that should matter more to them, can't you see how unfit this particular Democrat was for office. Is their behavior worthy of emulation?
|
On June 04 2026 00:13 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 00:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 03 2026 23:33 dyhb wrote:On June 03 2026 15:20 Velr wrote:
In what world do you life?
If Trump voters would care that Trump is a criminal, rapist, conman of any sort, they wouldn't have voted for him the first time, let alone a second and third time.
There is so much proven dirt on Trump, by conventional wisdom he shouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell to be elected to a local council in bumfuckistan.
Instead the Maggats ate the "Lawfare" talking point hook, line and sinker. This is the fallacy that because such voters exist, every voter is like this. I'm sure it's comfortable to live in such a black and white, fairy tale story world, but politics plays out in the real world. Relatively small swings of voters away from Trump were decisive in 2020 (and they outnumbered the small swings from Clinton voters onto Trump) in key states like Georgia and Pennsylvania. The same thing was true about swings from Biden back to Trump in 2024. These voters wouldn't exist if 2016 established a "Maggat" voter that eats talking points. Sure, but those back-and-forth swing voters are the exception, not the rule, hence why you correctly pointed out their "relatively small" number. The vast majority of 2016 Trump voters also voted for Trump in 2020 and 2024. Also, regardless of how many times someone has voted for Trump, Velr is correct that the Trump voter clearly either doesn't care that Trump is a criminal conman (it's not a disqualifying factor), or the Trump voter is so ignorant that they don't even realize/believe that Trump is a criminal conman. If you for a second forget how close elections are decided, I'm sure talking about the rule versus the exception to the rule makes sense to you. Now, tell me, are you interested in winning elections, or is the only thing that brings you to the table how unfair or morally irresponsible it is that more people don't change parties each election?
You're completely changing the topic here. Velr said that Trump voters generally don't care that Trump is a criminal, then you replied that there's a small group of swing voters that decided recent elections, then I said that your statement is true but irrelevant to Velr's original claim, and now you're doubling-down with your subject change by asking me if I care that "more people don't change parties each election". That has nothing to do with whether or not MAGA voters mind, realize, or believe that Trump is a criminal.
If you want to independently bring up the topic of the best ways to get people to change parties, that's fine, but your *replies* aren't applicable to Velr's post that you responded to and my post that you responded to. (For what it's worth, I think it's incredibly difficult to convince people to switch their party affiliation, and I think it would be more realistic and practical to focus on galvanizing the uninspired potential voters who are already in your party, but feel free to offer suggestions on party-changing, if you really want to focus on that).
|
On May 21 2026 09:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2026 06:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 21 2026 06:01 Geiko wrote:On May 21 2026 05:54 Liquid`Drone wrote: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:
[quote]
How does that particular math work? Let's aim for a trumpian 1000% decrease. Say the current price is 100 dollars. What number would that trumpian decrease be? Like, if I'm using a baseline of say 90 dollars, what is the final number that I'm arriving at?
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. Tbh I'm largely in agreement with you here. I think oBlade should just go like 'yeah, Trump's math is obviously stupid and he's barely coherent, but I like his policies so whatever' and then you know, we're still gonna disagree with the part about liking his policies (but maybe not in the context of reducing drug prices?) and it's all good. But with you, you're pretty consistently critical of Trump, so I don't understand why you're getting the pushback you're getting. And while I think there are countless examples of reasons to be genuinely angry about Trump, him not knowing math or numbers isn't one of them. It's in sharpiegate-territory. It's ridiculous. I mean, if you want to use it as a platform for lamenting the death of intellectualism or whatever, fine, not really gonna disagree there, it's genuinely sad that the US has a genuine idiot as president, but we can still laugh at it. Sometimes, I'll even laugh with him - I genuinely laughed out loud at the AI pooping on the no kings protest, for example - I'm not gonna fucking let him take fun away from me in during the attempted destruction of the western liberal world order. Besides, I actually think you guys need to look at the post-Trump future. If Mandela can forgive white people, we can forgive MAGA. The problem isn't Trump being bad at math, or liking big numbers, it's as you said, that his followers can't even agree that this one time, he isn't making sense and laugh it off. Yeah but dyhb isn't a Trump supporter and he's saying that Trump isn't making sense and yet he's being attacked for essentially not being outraged enough. + Show Spoiler + oBlade is a different matter. I imagine part of it is that they see themselves and how they talk about Democrats in dyhb when dyhb talks about Trump/MAGA.
You guys still don't see it?
On June 04 2026 00:13 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 23:51 Billyboy wrote:On June 03 2026 23:33 dyhb wrote:On June 03 2026 15:20 Velr wrote:
In what world do you life?
If Trump voters would care that Trump is a criminal, rapist, conman of any sort, they wouldn't have voted for him the first time, let alone a second and third time.
There is so much proven dirt on Trump, by conventional wisdom he shouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell to be elected to a local council in bumfuckistan.
Instead the Maggats ate the "Lawfare" talking point hook, line and sinker. This is the fallacy that because such voters exist, every voter is like this. I'm sure it's comfortable to live in such a black and white, fairy tale story world, but politics plays out in the real world. Relatively small swings of voters away from Trump were decisive in 2020 (and they outnumbered the small swings from Clinton voters onto Trump) in key states like Georgia and Pennsylvania. The same thing was true about swings from Biden back to Trump in 2024. These voters wouldn't exist if 2016 established a "Maggat" voter that eats talking points. I won't waste too much time on this subject, since the original point was on whether there's Trump bombshells in unreleased documents. People will have to find their own way to changing their mind on swing voters, if they're open to changing their mind. Nope, the original post was about Trump primaried everyone who faught to release the files, like Trump campaigned on. I responded to that post too, but you should see that I quoted a different post in my post. Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 00:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 03 2026 23:33 dyhb wrote:On June 03 2026 15:20 Velr wrote:
In what world do you life?
If Trump voters would care that Trump is a criminal, rapist, conman of any sort, they wouldn't have voted for him the first time, let alone a second and third time.
There is so much proven dirt on Trump, by conventional wisdom he shouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell to be elected to a local council in bumfuckistan.
Instead the Maggats ate the "Lawfare" talking point hook, line and sinker. This is the fallacy that because such voters exist, every voter is like this. I'm sure it's comfortable to live in such a black and white, fairy tale story world, but politics plays out in the real world. Relatively small swings of voters away from Trump were decisive in 2020 (and they outnumbered the small swings from Clinton voters onto Trump) in key states like Georgia and Pennsylvania. The same thing was true about swings from Biden back to Trump in 2024. These voters wouldn't exist if 2016 established a "Maggat" voter that eats talking points. Sure, but those back-and-forth swing voters are the exception, not the rule, hence why you correctly pointed out their "relatively small" number. The vast majority of 2016 Trump voters also voted for Trump in 2020 and 2024. Also, regardless of how many times someone has voted for Trump, Velr is correct that the Trump voter clearly either doesn't care that Trump is a criminal conman (it's not a disqualifying factor), or the Trump voter is so ignorant that they don't even realize/believe that Trump is a criminal conman. If you for a second forget how close elections are decided, I'm sure talking about the rule versus the exception to the rule makes sense to you. Now, tell me, are you interested in winning elections, or is the only thing that brings you to the table how unfair or morally irresponsible it is that more people don't change parties each election? Show nested quote +doesn't care that Trump is a criminal conman (it's not a disqualifying factor) It's also fallacious to conflate "doesn't care" with "disqualifying." That's more similar to a single-issue voter. Do they care about the candidate's position on abortion? Sure, but maybe they won't make their position on abortion the particular thing that makes them vote "No" against all the rest. It goes into the basket with the 2-3 other important things that the candidate does well or poorly on. Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 00:00 Velr wrote:
Most of Trumps voters voted for him 3 times. They voted for the guy after his first catastrophic presidency and they votet for him again after Jan 6th. A few just stayed home once.
There is nothing the guy could do, that would make them change their minds. At the latest they will/would change their minds in favor of him again once the democrats candidate has a "strange laugh" or whatever absolute nonsense they can come up with to still vote for him.
My vision is black and white because this stuff is plain black and white. If you decide to vote for this openly corrupt cretin you are part of the bad guys, in the fairy tale and in reality. I'm just going to point out how stupid it is to characterize all Trump voters by 3-time-voters, and how much more stupid it is to predict a hypothetical reveal of minor abuse in connection with Epstein from things like Carroll. I don't know in what universe you think focusing on people that never change their mind is useful to you, when you obviously know that recent elections were literally decided by people that did? I'm sure there's some group of Republicans on different forums whining that there's this segment of voters that Vote Blue No Matter Who, and how unfair it is, and how this and that should matter more to them, can't you see how unfit this particular Democrat was for office. Is their behavior worthy of emulation?
Some of this stuff is basically verbatim to the stuff you guys say. "Pragmatism" sounds stupid when it passes some arbitrary threshold that people hold in different places and typically retroactively rationalize. As in, whatever Democrats do is the pragmatic limit of the capacity of the system, rather than setting a more pragmatic position and forcing/leveraging politicians to conform to it (the latter being how basically all significant political progress has ever been made in the US).
That propaganda since the 60's has gotten otherwise intelligent and educated people in the West to abandon fealty to the reality of the latter for the delusion of the former is one of the worst omens for humanity at the global level.
|
Trump's DOJ had months and thousands of officials and FBI agents combing through the files and removing (completely, not just redacting) any files that might incriminate Trump.
Don't let the resident "pretending not to be a fascist so they take me seriously" guy here gaslight you into making this a conversation about process of releasing the files or possibility of them having parts where Trump rapes children, that's what they love to do.
Both of the guys arguing for the child rapist here are using one of the pillars of Trump defense, procedural critiques. Reminder, one of them is oBlade famous for his "K-Pop salute" analysis of Musk's Sieg Heil, while the other is (at least to me) most famous for repeatedly justifying IDF blowing up 8 and 11 old boys for gathering firewood too close to an imaginary line (that Israel in the meantime crossed in order to seize more of Gaza).
|
On June 04 2026 00:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2026 09:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 21 2026 06:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 21 2026 06:01 Geiko wrote:On May 21 2026 05:54 Liquid`Drone wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Tbh I'm largely in agreement with you here. I think oBlade should just go like 'yeah, Trump's math is obviously stupid and he's barely coherent, but I like his policies so whatever' and then you know, we're still gonna disagree with the part about liking his policies (but maybe not in the context of reducing drug prices?) and it's all good. But with you, you're pretty consistently critical of Trump, so I don't understand why you're getting the pushback you're getting. And while I think there are countless examples of reasons to be genuinely angry about Trump, him not knowing math or numbers isn't one of them. It's in sharpiegate-territory. It's ridiculous. I mean, if you want to use it as a platform for lamenting the death of intellectualism or whatever, fine, not really gonna disagree there, it's genuinely sad that the US has a genuine idiot as president, but we can still laugh at it. Sometimes, I'll even laugh with him - I genuinely laughed out loud at the AI pooping on the no kings protest, for example - I'm not gonna fucking let him take fun away from me in during the attempted destruction of the western liberal world order. Besides, I actually think you guys need to look at the post-Trump future. If Mandela can forgive white people, we can forgive MAGA. The problem isn't Trump being bad at math, or liking big numbers, it's as you said, that his followers can't even agree that this one time, he isn't making sense and laugh it off. Yeah but dyhb isn't a Trump supporter and he's saying that Trump isn't making sense and yet he's being attacked for essentially not being outraged enough. + Show Spoiler + oBlade is a different matter. I imagine part of it is that they see themselves and how they talk about Democrats in dyhb when dyhb talks about Trump/MAGA. You guys still don't see it? Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 00:13 dyhb wrote:On June 03 2026 23:51 Billyboy wrote:On June 03 2026 23:33 dyhb wrote:On June 03 2026 15:20 Velr wrote:
In what world do you life?
If Trump voters would care that Trump is a criminal, rapist, conman of any sort, they wouldn't have voted for him the first time, let alone a second and third time.
There is so much proven dirt on Trump, by conventional wisdom he shouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell to be elected to a local council in bumfuckistan.
Instead the Maggats ate the "Lawfare" talking point hook, line and sinker. This is the fallacy that because such voters exist, every voter is like this. I'm sure it's comfortable to live in such a black and white, fairy tale story world, but politics plays out in the real world. Relatively small swings of voters away from Trump were decisive in 2020 (and they outnumbered the small swings from Clinton voters onto Trump) in key states like Georgia and Pennsylvania. The same thing was true about swings from Biden back to Trump in 2024. These voters wouldn't exist if 2016 established a "Maggat" voter that eats talking points. I won't waste too much time on this subject, since the original point was on whether there's Trump bombshells in unreleased documents. People will have to find their own way to changing their mind on swing voters, if they're open to changing their mind. Nope, the original post was about Trump primaried everyone who faught to release the files, like Trump campaigned on. I responded to that post too, but you should see that I quoted a different post in my post. On June 04 2026 00:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 03 2026 23:33 dyhb wrote:On June 03 2026 15:20 Velr wrote:
In what world do you life?
If Trump voters would care that Trump is a criminal, rapist, conman of any sort, they wouldn't have voted for him the first time, let alone a second and third time.
There is so much proven dirt on Trump, by conventional wisdom he shouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell to be elected to a local council in bumfuckistan.
Instead the Maggats ate the "Lawfare" talking point hook, line and sinker. This is the fallacy that because such voters exist, every voter is like this. I'm sure it's comfortable to live in such a black and white, fairy tale story world, but politics plays out in the real world. Relatively small swings of voters away from Trump were decisive in 2020 (and they outnumbered the small swings from Clinton voters onto Trump) in key states like Georgia and Pennsylvania. The same thing was true about swings from Biden back to Trump in 2024. These voters wouldn't exist if 2016 established a "Maggat" voter that eats talking points. Sure, but those back-and-forth swing voters are the exception, not the rule, hence why you correctly pointed out their "relatively small" number. The vast majority of 2016 Trump voters also voted for Trump in 2020 and 2024. Also, regardless of how many times someone has voted for Trump, Velr is correct that the Trump voter clearly either doesn't care that Trump is a criminal conman (it's not a disqualifying factor), or the Trump voter is so ignorant that they don't even realize/believe that Trump is a criminal conman. If you for a second forget how close elections are decided, I'm sure talking about the rule versus the exception to the rule makes sense to you. Now, tell me, are you interested in winning elections, or is the only thing that brings you to the table how unfair or morally irresponsible it is that more people don't change parties each election? doesn't care that Trump is a criminal conman (it's not a disqualifying factor) It's also fallacious to conflate "doesn't care" with "disqualifying." That's more similar to a single-issue voter. Do they care about the candidate's position on abortion? Sure, but maybe they won't make their position on abortion the particular thing that makes them vote "No" against all the rest. It goes into the basket with the 2-3 other important things that the candidate does well or poorly on. On June 04 2026 00:00 Velr wrote:
Most of Trumps voters voted for him 3 times. They voted for the guy after his first catastrophic presidency and they votet for him again after Jan 6th. A few just stayed home once.
There is nothing the guy could do, that would make them change their minds. At the latest they will/would change their minds in favor of him again once the democrats candidate has a "strange laugh" or whatever absolute nonsense they can come up with to still vote for him.
My vision is black and white because this stuff is plain black and white. If you decide to vote for this openly corrupt cretin you are part of the bad guys, in the fairy tale and in reality. I'm just going to point out how stupid it is to characterize all Trump voters by 3-time-voters, and how much more stupid it is to predict a hypothetical reveal of minor abuse in connection with Epstein from things like Carroll. I don't know in what universe you think focusing on people that never change their mind is useful to you, when you obviously know that recent elections were literally decided by people that did? I'm sure there's some group of Republicans on different forums whining that there's this segment of voters that Vote Blue No Matter Who, and how unfair it is, and how this and that should matter more to them, can't you see how unfit this particular Democrat was for office. Is their behavior worthy of emulation? Some of this stuff is basically verbatim to the stuff you guys say. "Pragmatism" sounds stupid when it passes some arbitrary threshold that people hold in different places and typically retroactively rationalize. As in, whatever Democrats do is the pragmatic limit of the capacity of the system, rather than setting a more pragmatic position and forcing/leveraging politicians to conform to it (the latter being how basically all significant political progress has ever been made in the US). That propaganda since the 60's has gotten otherwise intelligent and educated people in the West to abandon fealty to the reality the latter for the delusion of the former is one of the worst omens for humanity at the global level.
I'm surprised that you just resurrected the conversation about Trump's "over 100%" decreases in drug costs.
|
On June 04 2026 00:40 Jankisa wrote:
Don't let the resident "pretending not to be a fascist so they take me seriously" guy here gaslight you into making this a conversation about process of releasing the files or possibility of them having parts where Trump rapes children, that's what they love to do.
I rank "I would believe the Epstein files if Biden released them" as the most aggressive, dumbest bald-faced lie ever told on this forum.
|
On June 04 2026 00:40 Jankisa wrote:
Trump's DOJ had months and thousands of officials and FBI agents combing through the files and removing (completely, not just redacting) any files that might incriminate Trump.
Thousands of officials and FBI agents hired in the last 25 years and not a single one had the conscience to whistleblow. A likely story.
On June 04 2026 00:40 Jankisa wrote:
Reminder, one of them is oBlade famous for his "K-Pop salute" analysis of Musk's Sieg Heil
Never happened lol.
On June 04 2026 00:49 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 00:40 Jankisa wrote:
Don't let the resident "pretending not to be a fascist so they take me seriously" guy here gaslight you into making this a conversation about process of releasing the files or possibility of them having parts where Trump rapes children, that's what they love to do. I rank "I would believe the Epstein files if Biden released them" as the most aggressive, dumbest bald-faced lie ever told on this forum.
There's nothing about any document I've seen that would make it less believable if it had come out under Biden.
|
On June 04 2026 00:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 00:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 21 2026 09:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 21 2026 06:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 21 2026 06:01 Geiko wrote:On May 21 2026 05:54 Liquid`Drone wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Tbh I'm largely in agreement with you here. I think oBlade should just go like 'yeah, Trump's math is obviously stupid and he's barely coherent, but I like his policies so whatever' and then you know, we're still gonna disagree with the part about liking his policies (but maybe not in the context of reducing drug prices?) and it's all good. But with you, you're pretty consistently critical of Trump, so I don't understand why you're getting the pushback you're getting. And while I think there are countless examples of reasons to be genuinely angry about Trump, him not knowing math or numbers isn't one of them. It's in sharpiegate-territory. It's ridiculous. I mean, if you want to use it as a platform for lamenting the death of intellectualism or whatever, fine, not really gonna disagree there, it's genuinely sad that the US has a genuine idiot as president, but we can still laugh at it. Sometimes, I'll even laugh with him - I genuinely laughed out loud at the AI pooping on the no kings protest, for example - I'm not gonna fucking let him take fun away from me in during the attempted destruction of the western liberal world order. Besides, I actually think you guys need to look at the post-Trump future. If Mandela can forgive white people, we can forgive MAGA. The problem isn't Trump being bad at math, or liking big numbers, it's as you said, that his followers can't even agree that this one time, he isn't making sense and laugh it off. Yeah but dyhb isn't a Trump supporter and he's saying that Trump isn't making sense and yet he's being attacked for essentially not being outraged enough. + Show Spoiler + oBlade is a different matter. I imagine part of it is that they see themselves and how they talk about Democrats in dyhb when dyhb talks about Trump/MAGA. You guys still don't see it? On June 04 2026 00:13 dyhb wrote:On June 03 2026 23:51 Billyboy wrote:On June 03 2026 23:33 dyhb wrote:On June 03 2026 15:20 Velr wrote:
In what world do you life?
If Trump voters would care that Trump is a criminal, rapist, conman of any sort, they wouldn't have voted for him the first time, let alone a second and third time.
There is so much proven dirt on Trump, by conventional wisdom he shouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell to be elected to a local council in bumfuckistan.
Instead the Maggats ate the "Lawfare" talking point hook, line and sinker. This is the fallacy that because such voters exist, every voter is like this. I'm sure it's comfortable to live in such a black and white, fairy tale story world, but politics plays out in the real world. Relatively small swings of voters away from Trump were decisive in 2020 (and they outnumbered the small swings from Clinton voters onto Trump) in key states like Georgia and Pennsylvania. The same thing was true about swings from Biden back to Trump in 2024. These voters wouldn't exist if 2016 established a "Maggat" voter that eats talking points. I won't waste too much time on this subject, since the original point was on whether there's Trump bombshells in unreleased documents. People will have to find their own way to changing their mind on swing voters, if they're open to changing their mind. Nope, the original post was about Trump primaried everyone who faught to release the files, like Trump campaigned on. I responded to that post too, but you should see that I quoted a different post in my post. On June 04 2026 00:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 03 2026 23:33 dyhb wrote:On June 03 2026 15:20 Velr wrote:
In what world do you life?
If Trump voters would care that Trump is a criminal, rapist, conman of any sort, they wouldn't have voted for him the first time, let alone a second and third time.
There is so much proven dirt on Trump, by conventional wisdom he shouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell to be elected to a local council in bumfuckistan.
Instead the Maggats ate the "Lawfare" talking point hook, line and sinker. This is the fallacy that because such voters exist, every voter is like this. I'm sure it's comfortable to live in such a black and white, fairy tale story world, but politics plays out in the real world. Relatively small swings of voters away from Trump were decisive in 2020 (and they outnumbered the small swings from Clinton voters onto Trump) in key states like Georgia and Pennsylvania. The same thing was true about swings from Biden back to Trump in 2024. These voters wouldn't exist if 2016 established a "Maggat" voter that eats talking points. Sure, but those back-and-forth swing voters are the exception, not the rule, hence why you correctly pointed out their "relatively small" number. The vast majority of 2016 Trump voters also voted for Trump in 2020 and 2024. Also, regardless of how many times someone has voted for Trump, Velr is correct that the Trump voter clearly either doesn't care that Trump is a criminal conman (it's not a disqualifying factor), or the Trump voter is so ignorant that they don't even realize/believe that Trump is a criminal conman. If you for a second forget how close elections are decided, I'm sure talking about the rule versus the exception to the rule makes sense to you. Now, tell me, are you interested in winning elections, or is the only thing that brings you to the table how unfair or morally irresponsible it is that more people don't change parties each election? doesn't care that Trump is a criminal conman (it's not a disqualifying factor) It's also fallacious to conflate "doesn't care" with "disqualifying." That's more similar to a single-issue voter. Do they care about the candidate's position on abortion? Sure, but maybe they won't make their position on abortion the particular thing that makes them vote "No" against all the rest. It goes into the basket with the 2-3 other important things that the candidate does well or poorly on. On June 04 2026 00:00 Velr wrote:
Most of Trumps voters voted for him 3 times. They voted for the guy after his first catastrophic presidency and they votet for him again after Jan 6th. A few just stayed home once.
There is nothing the guy could do, that would make them change their minds. At the latest they will/would change their minds in favor of him again once the democrats candidate has a "strange laugh" or whatever absolute nonsense they can come up with to still vote for him.
My vision is black and white because this stuff is plain black and white. If you decide to vote for this openly corrupt cretin you are part of the bad guys, in the fairy tale and in reality. I'm just going to point out how stupid it is to characterize all Trump voters by 3-time-voters, and how much more stupid it is to predict a hypothetical reveal of minor abuse in connection with Epstein from things like Carroll. I don't know in what universe you think focusing on people that never change their mind is useful to you, when you obviously know that recent elections were literally decided by people that did? I'm sure there's some group of Republicans on different forums whining that there's this segment of voters that Vote Blue No Matter Who, and how unfair it is, and how this and that should matter more to them, can't you see how unfit this particular Democrat was for office. Is their behavior worthy of emulation? Some of this stuff is basically verbatim to the stuff you guys say. "Pragmatism" sounds stupid when it passes some arbitrary threshold that people hold in different places and typically retroactively rationalize. As in, whatever Democrats do is the pragmatic limit of the capacity of the system, rather than setting a more pragmatic position and forcing/leveraging politicians to conform to it (the latter being how basically all significant political progress has ever been made in the US). That propaganda since the 60's has gotten otherwise intelligent and educated people in the West to abandon fealty to the reality the latter for the delusion of the former is one of the worst omens for humanity at the global level. I'm surprised that you just resurrected the conversation about Trump's "over 100%" decreases in drug costs.
See? Look how easily you responded to something other than the topic of the post you quoted.
I doubt you or dyhb did it on accident.
|
On June 04 2026 00:51 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 00:40 Jankisa wrote:
Trump's DOJ had months and thousands of officials and FBI agents combing through the files and removing (completely, not just redacting) any files that might incriminate Trump. Thousands of officials and FBI agents hired in the last 25 years and not a single one had the conscience to whistleblow. A likely story.
There were numerous articles about FBI agents directly telling the public that they were ordered to work overtime to redact Trump's name from Epstein files.
|
On June 04 2026 00:56 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 00:51 oBlade wrote:On June 04 2026 00:40 Jankisa wrote:
Trump's DOJ had months and thousands of officials and FBI agents combing through the files and removing (completely, not just redacting) any files that might incriminate Trump. Thousands of officials and FBI agents hired in the last 25 years and not a single one had the conscience to whistleblow. A likely story. There were numerous articles about FBI agents directly telling the public that they were ordered to work overtime to redact Trump's name from Epstein files.
You guys are flanking each other and don't realize. You believe for near-religious reasons the files prove he's a child rapist, meanwhile Jankisa thinks anything that might incriminate him, let alone ironclad proof, got completely removed. I mean it's definitely easy for me to accept that you think he's a child rapist regardless. Meanwhile in the real world Trump's border policy alone has already saved more children than the number of times you've posted. Which I don't recall Mr. Magoo and his assistant the coconut farmer having helped at all, nor you ever having given a shit about their plight.
Whether the Epstein files are released in 2023 or 2026 should make no difference on belief in the content. I read the investigative summary of how a woman claimed Trump and Robin Leach raped her at Trump National Golf Club in Rancho Palos Verdes 5 years before the golf course was built. And I believe it. I believe that it's true that a woman made that claim and that the investigators recorded it and that it was shared with the public upon release of the files for transparency. The claim itself still has no veracity regardless of its release date (i.e. under which administration). If you've got evidence you found that you think is extra credible, explaining it's a lot more interesting than deferring to the near-religious belief you have as to what the files prove. People don't convert that way. Not that that's why you're here.
|
On June 04 2026 00:49 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 00:40 Jankisa wrote:
Don't let the resident "pretending not to be a fascist so they take me seriously" guy here gaslight you into making this a conversation about process of releasing the files or possibility of them having parts where Trump rapes children, that's what they love to do. I rank "I would believe the Epstein files if Biden released them" as the most aggressive, dumbest bald-faced lie ever told on this forum.
On June 04 2026 00:56 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 00:51 oBlade wrote:On June 04 2026 00:40 Jankisa wrote:
Trump's DOJ had months and thousands of officials and FBI agents combing through the files and removing (completely, not just redacting) any files that might incriminate Trump. Thousands of officials and FBI agents hired in the last 25 years and not a single one had the conscience to whistleblow. A likely story. There were numerous articles about FBI agents directly telling the public that they were ordered to work overtime to redact Trump's name from Epstein files.
Projection?
On June 04 2026 00:40 Jankisa wrote:
Trump's DOJ had months and thousands of officials and FBI agents combing through the files and removing (completely, not just redacting) any files that might incriminate Trump.
Biden's had 4 years...
|
On June 04 2026 00:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 00:13 dyhb wrote:On June 04 2026 00:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 03 2026 23:33 dyhb wrote:On June 03 2026 15:20 Velr wrote:
In what world do you life?
If Trump voters would care that Trump is a criminal, rapist, conman of any sort, they wouldn't have voted for him the first time, let alone a second and third time.
There is so much proven dirt on Trump, by conventional wisdom he shouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell to be elected to a local council in bumfuckistan.
Instead the Maggats ate the "Lawfare" talking point hook, line and sinker. This is the fallacy that because such voters exist, every voter is like this. I'm sure it's comfortable to live in such a black and white, fairy tale story world, but politics plays out in the real world. Relatively small swings of voters away from Trump were decisive in 2020 (and they outnumbered the small swings from Clinton voters onto Trump) in key states like Georgia and Pennsylvania. The same thing was true about swings from Biden back to Trump in 2024. These voters wouldn't exist if 2016 established a "Maggat" voter that eats talking points. Sure, but those back-and-forth swing voters are the exception, not the rule, hence why you correctly pointed out their "relatively small" number. The vast majority of 2016 Trump voters also voted for Trump in 2020 and 2024. Also, regardless of how many times someone has voted for Trump, Velr is correct that the Trump voter clearly either doesn't care that Trump is a criminal conman (it's not a disqualifying factor), or the Trump voter is so ignorant that they don't even realize/believe that Trump is a criminal conman. If you for a second forget how close elections are decided, I'm sure talking about the rule versus the exception to the rule makes sense to you. Now, tell me, are you interested in winning elections, or is the only thing that brings you to the table how unfair or morally irresponsible it is that more people don't change parties each election? You're completely changing the topic here. Velr said that Trump voters generally don't care He said that they don't care. Read the post.
that Trump is a criminal, then you replied that there's a small group of swing voters that decided recent elections, then I said that your statement is true but irrelevant to Velr's original claim, and now you're doubling-down with your subject change by asking me if I care that "more people don't change parties each election". That has nothing to do with whether or not MAGA voters mind, realize, or believe that Trump is a criminal. It's relevant when Trump voters stop voting for Trump. This group numbers in the millions. It decides elections.
If you want to independently bring up the topic of the best ways to get people to change parties, that's fine, but your *replies* aren't applicable to Velr's post that you responded to and my post that you responded to. (For what it's worth, I think it's incredibly difficult to convince people to switch their party affiliation, and I think it would be more realistic and practical to focus on galvanizing the uninspired potential voters who are already in your party, but feel free to offer suggestions on party-changing, if you really want to focus on that).
My post was why Democratic operatives and Democratic-partisan government officials would leak damaging info about Trump from Epstein-related documents. They want to win elections. Shifting voters matter even if you're aiming at a target of 20% instead 80%. You also don't have a prayer at getting close to an 100% swing of that target. If you all throw up your hands like Velr and say "It won't change anything," you either don't care about winning elections or are too ignorant of the political process.
Velr made exactly zero consideration for the Trump voters that didn't vote for him the second or third time, and zero consideration for caring about an issue vs. becoming a single-issue voter around that issue. That was and is a mistake.
Trump won Wisconsin by 0.8%, Biden won Wisconsin by 0.6%, and Trump(24) won Wisconsin by 0.9%. Pennsylvania was 0.7%, 1.2%, 1.7%. So kindly don't respond to a post on what political operatives/partisans do to win elections by neglecting the kinds of percentage margins that have mattered for the better part of the last decade of elections.+ Show Spoiler +In full fairness, the same goes if you're some Republican lurker here. Don't look at the abysmal 1.9% swing of Clinton voters to Trump2020 and throw up your hands and scream "Clinton voters aren't going to change their mind, don't even try on Biden voters, it's negligible, these people are brainwashed talking-point-believing Dems."
|
On June 04 2026 01:43 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 00:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 04 2026 00:13 dyhb wrote:On June 04 2026 00:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 03 2026 23:33 dyhb wrote:On June 03 2026 15:20 Velr wrote:
In what world do you life?
If Trump voters would care that Trump is a criminal, rapist, conman of any sort, they wouldn't have voted for him the first time, let alone a second and third time.
There is so much proven dirt on Trump, by conventional wisdom he shouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell to be elected to a local council in bumfuckistan.
Instead the Maggats ate the "Lawfare" talking point hook, line and sinker. This is the fallacy that because such voters exist, every voter is like this. I'm sure it's comfortable to live in such a black and white, fairy tale story world, but politics plays out in the real world. Relatively small swings of voters away from Trump were decisive in 2020 (and they outnumbered the small swings from Clinton voters onto Trump) in key states like Georgia and Pennsylvania. The same thing was true about swings from Biden back to Trump in 2024. These voters wouldn't exist if 2016 established a "Maggat" voter that eats talking points. Sure, but those back-and-forth swing voters are the exception, not the rule, hence why you correctly pointed out their "relatively small" number. The vast majority of 2016 Trump voters also voted for Trump in 2020 and 2024. Also, regardless of how many times someone has voted for Trump, Velr is correct that the Trump voter clearly either doesn't care that Trump is a criminal conman (it's not a disqualifying factor), or the Trump voter is so ignorant that they don't even realize/believe that Trump is a criminal conman. If you for a second forget how close elections are decided, I'm sure talking about the rule versus the exception to the rule makes sense to you. Now, tell me, are you interested in winning elections, or is the only thing that brings you to the table how unfair or morally irresponsible it is that more people don't change parties each election? You're completely changing the topic here. Velr said that Trump voters generally don't care He said that they don't care. Read the post. Show nested quote +that Trump is a criminal, then you replied that there's a small group of swing voters that decided recent elections, then I said that your statement is true but irrelevant to Velr's original claim, and now you're doubling-down with your subject change by asking me if I care that "more people don't change parties each election". That has nothing to do with whether or not MAGA voters mind, realize, or believe that Trump is a criminal. It's relevant when Trump voters stop voting for Trump. This group numbers in the millions. It decides elections. Show nested quote +If you want to independently bring up the topic of the best ways to get people to change parties, that's fine, but your *replies* aren't applicable to Velr's post that you responded to and my post that you responded to. (For what it's worth, I think it's incredibly difficult to convince people to switch their party affiliation, and I think it would be more realistic and practical to focus on galvanizing the uninspired potential voters who are already in your party, but feel free to offer suggestions on party-changing, if you really want to focus on that). My post was why Democratic operatives and Democratic-partisan government officials would leak damaging info about Trump from Epstein-related documents. They want to win elections. Shifting voters matter even if you're aiming at a target of 20% instead 80%. You also don't have a prayer at getting close to an 100% swing of that target. If you all throw up your hands like Velr and say "It won't change anything," you either don't care about winning elections or are too ignorant of the political process. Velr made exactly zero consideration for the Trump voters that didn't vote for him the second or third time, and zero consideration for caring about an issue vs. becoming a single-issue voter around that issue. That was and is a mistake. Trump won Wisconsin by 0.8%, Biden won Wisconsin by 0.6%, and Trump(24) won Wisconsin by 0.9%. Pennsylvania was 0.7%, 1.2%, 1.7%. So kindly don't respond to a post on what political operatives/partisans do to win elections by neglecting the kinds of percentage margins that have mattered for the better part of the last decade of elections. + Show Spoiler +In full fairness, the same goes if you're some Republican lurker here. Don't look at the abysmal 1.9% swing of Clinton voters to Trump2020 and throw up your hands and scream "Clinton voters aren't going to change their mind, don't even try on Biden voters, it's negligible, these people are brainwashed talking-point-believing Dems."
Is that post in the room with us right now? Because you haven't yet offered suggestions on how to best convince more people to change parties, and that's the topic that you had just been trying to shift towards. I hope you don't think that Democrats pointing out facts about Trump's criminal history makes him automatically lose elections (see the 2016 and 2024 elections). It clearly hasn't been "damaging info" when so many people don't care (which is what Velr had pointed out in the first place, and what you tried to ignore).
So, to focus on your new topic, since you brought it up: What are some recommendations for convincing people to change their party affiliation that you've actually seen work, and do you think any Republican leader or Democratic leader is doing a good job of pulling support from the other side (even at the state or local levels)?
There's also nothing wrong with you reciting mundane statistics on how the swing states turned out over previous elections, but those numbers aren't necessarily indicative of that many people switching their vote*, let alone why they switched their vote. *Some extra Republicans may have just stayed home from voting when Biden won, and some extra Democrats may have just stayed home from voting when Trump won. For the even smaller group who truly voted Republican one election and then Democrat the next, it would be helpful for you to present their main reasons for doing so, and then explore if that reason can generalize to a larger group of voters or for future elections/candidates.
|
On June 04 2026 01:22 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 00:56 LightSpectra wrote:On June 04 2026 00:51 oBlade wrote:On June 04 2026 00:40 Jankisa wrote:
Trump's DOJ had months and thousands of officials and FBI agents combing through the files and removing (completely, not just redacting) any files that might incriminate Trump. Thousands of officials and FBI agents hired in the last 25 years and not a single one had the conscience to whistleblow. A likely story. There were numerous articles about FBI agents directly telling the public that they were ordered to work overtime to redact Trump's name from Epstein files. You guys are flanking each other and don't realize. You believe for near-religious reasons the files prove he's a child rapist, meanwhile Jankisa thinks anything that might incriminate him, let alone ironclad proof, got completely removed. I mean it's definitely easy for me to accept that you think he's a child rapist regardless.
These aren't contradictory. The redactions were done incredibly poorly and easily revealed.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/23/epstein-unredacted-files-social-media
"Near religious" is a fascinating term to use here. Moving to cover up evidence, like when he begged Mace and Boebert to withdraw their names from the discharge petition, usually indicates guilt. In your world people only destroy or hide evidence that proves they're innocent because they're innocent.
Meanwhile in the real world Trump's border policy alone has already saved more children than the number of times you've posted.
Throwing thousands of kids in cages doesn't save them.
Whether the Epstein files are released in 2023 or 2026 should make no difference on belief in the content.
You hear that, dyhb?
On June 04 2026 01:31 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 00:49 LightSpectra wrote:On June 04 2026 00:40 Jankisa wrote:
Don't let the resident "pretending not to be a fascist so they take me seriously" guy here gaslight you into making this a conversation about process of releasing the files or possibility of them having parts where Trump rapes children, that's what they love to do. I rank "I would believe the Epstein files if Biden released them" as the most aggressive, dumbest bald-faced lie ever told on this forum. Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 00:56 LightSpectra wrote:On June 04 2026 00:51 oBlade wrote:On June 04 2026 00:40 Jankisa wrote:
Trump's DOJ had months and thousands of officials and FBI agents combing through the files and removing (completely, not just redacting) any files that might incriminate Trump. Thousands of officials and FBI agents hired in the last 25 years and not a single one had the conscience to whistleblow. A likely story. There were numerous articles about FBI agents directly telling the public that they were ordered to work overtime to redact Trump's name from Epstein files. Projection?
Literally what does this mean lmao. The only people saying "the Epstein files prove Trump is innocent because Trump released them/Biden didn't release them" are the right-wingers in this thread.
|
On June 03 2026 23:04 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 19:37 Jankisa wrote:On June 03 2026 12:26 oBlade wrote:On June 03 2026 04:00 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2026 03:28 oBlade wrote:On June 03 2026 02:50 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2026 00:49 oBlade wrote:On June 03 2026 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm accused of murdering my wife with a gun. While a warrant is out for my arrest and to collect all my belongings for evidence, I instead decide to turn in my gun, registered to me, with only my fingerprints on it, with one bullet missing from the clip. "I'm innocent, why else would I turn in my gun if it incriminates me?"
The jury acquits me because people agree with your mentality. What do you suppose would have happened had Trump actually vetoed the files containing the smoking gun of rape which you alone found? For one, you’d be here telling us that actually it’s precisely because he vetoed them that he’s clearly innocent. After all, a guilty man would try to appear innocent by releasing them. Only an innocent man wouldn’t care. The question was already answered. It would go back to Congress. For me personally, once the overwhelming majority of both houses of Congress came back voting to release the files anyway, despite the Republicans getting no credit because it was all part of Biden's master plan, I'd just look at the evidence. Same as now. Look at the evidence. Then seeing there's no smoking guns, and it's impossible to prove a nonspecific negative, I'd move on. Especially I'd make sure even if I believed X or Y in the Epstein files was a child rapist, I wouldn't go around calling anyone who wasn't cheering the immediate lynching of X and Y a rape apologist. I'd grow up connect the dots and come to the realization "Oh, this person isn't against lynching X and Y because they like defending child rapists, it's the exact opposite, it's because they don't think there's any evidence X or Y is a child rapist." Yeah, no, I’m not going to assume good faith from you. I don’t think you do think he’s not a child rapist, just like I do think you know exactly what salute Elon was doing. You can continue to protest that you’re just a well intentioned guy who reached different conclusions than the rest of us from the same evidence but unfortunately for you, we’ve seen your posts. We know you well enough to know that child rape simply isn’t a deal breaker for you. "I know you're in favor of child rape because Elon Musk's arm was at a 45 degree angle for half a second years ago and you also didn't adopt my deluded hysteria about that." Good one buddy. The problem with trying to tell people what they think is you'll be constantly wrong because they know what they think better than you do. On June 03 2026 06:58 Billyboy wrote:
I guess we can officially end the is or is not Mike Flynn an agent for Russia. He’s now officially registered as a foreign agent, brining down 100k a month.
Silly Dems and their Russian hoax take that!….
Also if you have not read or seen Trump explain that there is a B at the end of dumb and most people don’t know that, take a look. God what an embarrassment that he leads the most powerful country in the world. Even more embarrassing is the people who think he’s smart! So you look this one up and he registered as an AGENT... for the Republic of Srpska in the Balkans in 2025. What effect this has on Russia investigations from 2016-2018 is anyone's guess. Milorad Dodik is as close as you can get to being a Russian/Serbian puppet and a head of their puppet state as possible, Russians paying Flynn through Republika Srpska makes absolute sense, and Republika Srpska paying $ 100 k a month while having a GDP per capita of around $9 k makes no sense. Of course, you got your marching orders of "akshualy, it's not Russia" so you had to regurgitate them, but I wanted to point this out to people who might see your post and think you were accidentally honest. Speaking of insane corruption and dishonesty, Bill Pulte, a moron nepo baby has been named as the new acting DNI chief, one of the most senior positions in government is being filled by a guy who has 0 experience in intelligence, foreign politics or law enforcement, but plenty of experience in grifting meme stocks and paying people to follow him on Twitter. It's so fun that at the time of a war with a country with terrorist cells all around the world who's last resort is asymetrical warfare the DNI is headed by this creature: Reading Republican senators talk About this guy is hilarious, they are trying so hard to seem credible but also avoid Trumps wrath, from an objectively terrible pick, regardless of political affiliation. Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 22:19 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Pretty brutal that Trump and his ambassador to Canada are celebrating its economic failures. Aren't Canada and the USA supposed to be allies? Doesn't Trump want to see the USA's allies succeed? https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/donald-trump-revives-51st-state-threats-after-canada-slips-into-technical-recession/Trump took to Truth Social Monday night to post the words “51st State” with a link to a Bloomberg news article titled “Canada Dips Into Technical Recession for First Time Since 2020”. It is hilarious watching the left wing Canadian media run cover for the ruling Liberal government by labelling Canada's economic performance a "technical" recession. Canada is the only G7 nation in a recession.. end of story guys. Some big name DOC in Montreal is leaving for the USA due to "antisemitism". I don't know about Montreal, but in Toronto the antisemitism is being way over played. I highly suspect the antisemitism in Montreal is being over played as well. Its worse in Montreal, 50% worse for something that's small is not a biggie. https://montrealgazette.com/news/health/chief-heart-surgeon-jewish-general-hospital-quits-quebec-antisemitism-montreal/The best DRs that are specialists in Canada often leave for the USA not just for the money, but for the autonomy hospital admins can give them to get even better in their chosen specialization. So its not all "anti semitism". This DR is prolly leaving for a myriad of reasons. However, none of that makes for a shocking headline because its been happening for 90 years. This Doc is prolly getting an entire support system for his work and more autonomy over patient selection. He is prolly getting his own personal hospital wing. LOL. It is pretty myopic of people to think Canadians just leave for the USA ... "for the money". That just ain't true. My American customers are far more willing to break new ground on new products. My Canadian customers only want to use software that is already fully established with a proven track record. My Canadian customers play it so safe its boring. Liberals are not Left wing. Under Carney they are center right on everything but social. How do you not know this? Not wasting my time with the rest of your nonsense, especially on the wrong thread.
The best DRs leave Canada for the USA. It is an important point to make in an anti-American thread like this one.
Wider than that the best university grads from the toughest undergrad programs continue to leave Canada for the USA.
The USA continues to attract a metric tonne of hard-working Canadians.
Lol about the 2026 Libs... the Toronto Star is a Liberal Rag no matter who is leading the party. The left wing CBC backs the Liberals whether Liberal Chretien is cutting unemployment benefits to the bone and running surpluses OR Justin Trudeau is promising to plant 2 billion trees.
Furthermore,
US orgs willingness to take risks attracts talent.
https://www.eda.gov/news/press-release/2024/02/08/national-advisory-council-innovation-and-entrepreneurship-nacie
Anyhow, plenty of good, hard working people from G7 nations want in to the USA because it is a great country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/mcveRPX.png)
