|
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 04 2026 02:21 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 23:04 Billyboy wrote: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. 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. Anyhow, plenty of good, hard working people from G7 nations want in to the USA because it is a great country.
Restating your Rebel News talking points don’t make them less wrong or dum.
|
On June 04 2026 02:28 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 02:21 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 03 2026 23:04 Billyboy wrote: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. 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. Anyhow, plenty of good, hard working people from G7 nations want in to the USA because it is a great country. Restating your Rebel News talking points don’t make them less wrong or dum.
I will restate my point here...
https://www.eda.gov/news/press-release/2024/02/08/national-advisory-council-innovation-and-entrepreneurship-nacie
Risk taking attracts talent
Does rebel news recommend getting dual citizenship and conversing in 3 languages as the best path for optimizing economic opportunity...or do they just amplify whining?
I am all about forming an action plan ...
|
On June 04 2026 02:16 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 01:22 oBlade wrote: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
That doesn't explain where the whistleblowers went.
The redactions were of such low quality, that it obviated the need for any one of the thousands of officials/FBI agents to come forward as a whistleblower and say "LOOK! Here is the exact proof of Trump being a child rapist that I was specifically ordered to remove!" because we could all figure it out anyway from the final release?
Bullshit. Said agents would have no way of knowing what they were seeing wasn't going to be even more redacted - so not coming forward would be a mass act of bystander cowardice there when as dyhb said the government couldn't even keep his taxes secure. Not a likely story.
Not to mention this isn't just Trump.
This guy was supposed to be the #1 most notorious child rapist in the world? (Coincidentally your political Satan and center of your universe is #2) - So who are #3 to #50? Surely Blumpf wouldn't have the DOJ go through the trouble of protecting them ALL. Or haven't you thought that far ahead yet.
Where are the child rape and sexual abuse and sex trafficking charges or suits against anyone else in the files?
Ah, right, maybe it's too old for legal proceedings. Nevertheless, there should at least be value in learning of a crime even if it can't be charged. And there must be a lot of definitely guilty people mentioned for how copious the volume of documents is. As the expert on these files, flex a little. Start us at a neutral point? Not a lightning rod like Trump or Musk. A nice random person and the incontrovertible proof (or poorly redacted version of same that is easy to recognize) of their heinous crimes. Link away, reel me in with "You clearly accept this proves random guy X is a child rapist, right?" and once I acknowledge it then spring the identical looking proof but implicating Trump. Could not be easier to convince me.
On June 04 2026 02:16 LightSpectra wrote:
"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.
I'm pretty good with the face value explanation of just not wanting to release millions of pages of meaningless shit that drags people, public figures, victims, etc., (which is what full unredacted releases do) by innuendo feeding the fire of a conspiracy over a dead guy who can't be cross-examined.
You just said "kids in cages" forgetting that "kids in cages" specifically came from Mr. Magoo's boss over a decade ago while linking to an article with no cages.
|
On June 04 2026 02:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 01:43 dyhb wrote: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. 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." 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. Let's work on the basic understanding first: my post on why Democrats would leak damaging info on Trump from Epstein documents to help Biden win is not countered by a false post stating zero people would care and all Trump voters are 3-time Trump voters. It ought to be hard to neglect smallish swings when we have a decade of small margins in states that decide the electoral college.
If that's too difficult of an exchange to understand clearly, then you're going to be entirely hopeless when it comes to more difficult and more nuanced points regarding new but related topics. I want to tailor my replies to posts to me with the understanding and engagement level exhibited by the poster. I'm happy if people decide the discussion should be why Clinton/Biden/Kamala should've won by 500 electoral college votes each, since Trump is morally unfit to be president and there's something psychologically wrong with the electorate each time they don't deliver those victories. Fun discussion. Please have 100 pages of it. For actually winning elections and stopping Trump's extremist policies, I don't want the person that's well-meaning but totally out of touch. I guess they're technically an ally, but pragmatically do more harm than good.
|
On June 04 2026 03:12 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 02:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 04 2026 01:43 dyhb wrote: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. 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." 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. Let's work on the basic understanding first: my post on why Democrats would leak damaging info on Trump from Epstein documents to help Biden win is not countered by a false post stating zero people would care and all Trump voters are 3-time Trump voters. It ought to be hard to neglect smallish swings when we have a decade of small margins in states that decide the electoral college. If that's too difficult of an exchange to understand clearly, then you're going to be entirely hopeless when it comes to more difficult and more nuanced points regarding new but related topics. I want to tailor my replies to posts to me with the understanding and engagement level exhibited by the poster. I'm happy if people decide the discussion should be why Clinton/Biden/Kamala should've won by 500 electoral college votes each, since Trump is morally unfit to be president and there's something psychologically wrong with the electorate each time they don't deliver those victories. Fun discussion. Please have 100 pages of it. For actually winning elections and stopping Trump's extremist policies, I don't want the person that's well-meaning but totally out of touch. I guess they're technically an ally, but pragmatically do more harm than good.
There is an outdated (but was wrong back then too) view on the left that only turnout matters. The existence of persuadable voters is a myth and that rather than try to moderate the goal ought to be to get the more citizens, who really yearning for the equality of social democracy or socialism, to vote by presenting to them real candidates of the people. Years ago it was popular here, but again it was common in all corners of the left. It is wrong but some people are slow to update their beliefs, especially when they imply a need for moderation.
|
On June 04 2026 03:12 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 02:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 04 2026 01:43 dyhb wrote: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. 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." 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. Let's work on the basic understanding first: my post on why Democrats would leak damaging info on Trump from Epstein documents to help Biden win is not countered by a false post stating zero people would care and all Trump voters are 3-time Trump voters. It ought to be hard to neglect smallish swings when we have a decade of small margins in states that decide the electoral college. If that's too difficult of an exchange to understand clearly, then you're going to be entirely hopeless when it comes to more difficult and more nuanced points regarding new but related topics. I want to tailor my replies to posts to me with the understanding and engagement level exhibited by the poster. I'm happy if people decide the discussion should be why Clinton/Biden/Kamala should've won by 500 electoral college votes each, since Trump is morally unfit to be president and there's something psychologically wrong with the electorate each time they don't deliver those victories. Fun discussion. Please have 100 pages of it. For actually winning elections and stopping Trump's extremist policies, I don't want the person that's well-meaning but totally out of touch. I guess they're technically an ally, but pragmatically do more harm than good.
That's a very long-winded way of saying that you have no response to the topic you brought up as a distraction to a previous post 
"I'm happy if people decide the discussion should be why Clinton/Biden/Kamala should've won by 500 electoral college votes each"
It really doesn't sound like you'd be happy with that, but given that that's not what's being discussed anyway, I'm happy to engage with your preferred prompt:
I'll repeat the questions you were suddenly curious about, one more time: 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)?
|
On June 04 2026 03:23 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 03:12 dyhb wrote:On June 04 2026 02:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 04 2026 01:43 dyhb wrote: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. 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." 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. Let's work on the basic understanding first: my post on why Democrats would leak damaging info on Trump from Epstein documents to help Biden win is not countered by a false post stating zero people would care and all Trump voters are 3-time Trump voters. It ought to be hard to neglect smallish swings when we have a decade of small margins in states that decide the electoral college. If that's too difficult of an exchange to understand clearly, then you're going to be entirely hopeless when it comes to more difficult and more nuanced points regarding new but related topics. I want to tailor my replies to posts to me with the understanding and engagement level exhibited by the poster. I'm happy if people decide the discussion should be why Clinton/Biden/Kamala should've won by 500 electoral college votes each, since Trump is morally unfit to be president and there's something psychologically wrong with the electorate each time they don't deliver those victories. Fun discussion. Please have 100 pages of it. For actually winning elections and stopping Trump's extremist policies, I don't want the person that's well-meaning but totally out of touch. I guess they're technically an ally, but pragmatically do more harm than good. There is an outdated (but was wrong back then too) view on the left that only turnout matters. The existence of persuadable voters is a myth and that rather than try to moderate the goal ought to be to get the more citizens, who really yearning for the equality of social democracy or socialism, to vote by presenting to them real candidates of the people. Years ago it was popular here, but again it was common in all corners of the left. It is wrong but some people are slow to update their beliefs, especially when they imply a need for moderation.
So far, dyhb has refused to offer suggestions on how to appeal to swing voters, despite bringing up the topic as a distraction from a previous one. I'm open to hearing your ideas too, of course. 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)?
Also, there is an entire spectrum of "persuadable voters"; that phrase doesn't just apply to moderates / swing voters.
|
On June 04 2026 03:23 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 03:12 dyhb wrote:On June 04 2026 02:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 04 2026 01:43 dyhb wrote: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. 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." 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. Let's work on the basic understanding first: my post on why Democrats would leak damaging info on Trump from Epstein documents to help Biden win is not countered by a false post stating zero people would care and all Trump voters are 3-time Trump voters. It ought to be hard to neglect smallish swings when we have a decade of small margins in states that decide the electoral college. If that's too difficult of an exchange to understand clearly, then you're going to be entirely hopeless when it comes to more difficult and more nuanced points regarding new but related topics. I want to tailor my replies to posts to me with the understanding and engagement level exhibited by the poster. I'm happy if people decide the discussion should be why Clinton/Biden/Kamala should've won by 500 electoral college votes each, since Trump is morally unfit to be president and there's something psychologically wrong with the electorate each time they don't deliver those victories. Fun discussion. Please have 100 pages of it. For actually winning elections and stopping Trump's extremist policies, I don't want the person that's well-meaning but totally out of touch. I guess they're technically an ally, but pragmatically do more harm than good. There is an outdated (but was wrong back then too) view on the left that only turnout matters. The existence of persuadable voters is a myth and that rather than try to moderate the goal ought to be to get the more citizens, who really yearning for the equality of social democracy or socialism, to vote by presenting to them real candidates of the people. Years ago it was popular here, but again it was common in all corners of the left. It is wrong but some people are slow to update their beliefs, especially when they imply a need for moderation. Yeah there's more than turnout. Voters are more complex than their last 3 votes. I think the number is now 26%double-haters, and 41% of the young are double haters. You have a little agreement to work with, here!
I'm guessing its anger that drives people to conclude there's only an unpersuadable lemming voter out there voting against them. Or it's some stupid faux-intellectual partisanship that divides America into the us, people motivated by compassion, love, and Democratic principles, and them, people that are motivated by hate, stupidity, and moral failure. Capture some more of the middle, moderate the more extreme positions, get off your high-horse Sunday-School-teacher moral scolding, and win. If winning is the goal, and whining about the reasons you aren't winning isn't the actual goal.
On June 04 2026 03:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 03:12 dyhb wrote:On June 04 2026 02:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 04 2026 01:43 dyhb wrote: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. 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." 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. Let's work on the basic understanding first: my post on why Democrats would leak damaging info on Trump from Epstein documents to help Biden win is not countered by a false post stating zero people would care and all Trump voters are 3-time Trump voters. It ought to be hard to neglect smallish swings when we have a decade of small margins in states that decide the electoral college. If that's too difficult of an exchange to understand clearly, then you're going to be entirely hopeless when it comes to more difficult and more nuanced points regarding new but related topics. I want to tailor my replies to posts to me with the understanding and engagement level exhibited by the poster. I'm happy if people decide the discussion should be why Clinton/Biden/Kamala should've won by 500 electoral college votes each, since Trump is morally unfit to be president and there's something psychologically wrong with the electorate each time they don't deliver those victories. Fun discussion. Please have 100 pages of it. For actually winning elections and stopping Trump's extremist policies, I don't want the person that's well-meaning but totally out of touch. I guess they're technically an ally, but pragmatically do more harm than good. That's a very long-winded way of saying that you have no response to the topic you brought up as a distraction to a previous post "I'm happy if people decide the discussion should be why Clinton/Biden/Kamala should've won by 500 electoral college votes each" It really doesn't sound like you'd be happy with that, but given that that's not what's being discussed anyway, I'm happy to engage with your preferred prompt: I'll repeat the questions you were suddenly curious about, one more time: 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)? Sadly, this is nonresponsive to my post, so I hope you give it another read and make a topical and constructive response, if that ever becomes your choice. I'll link it one more time, and I want you to focus on the first paragraph if it's actually long-winded for you. That reduces your load from 207 words to 69 words.
On June 04 2026 03:48 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 03:12 dyhb wrote:On June 04 2026 02:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 04 2026 01:43 dyhb wrote: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. 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." 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. Let's work on the basic understanding first: my post on why Democrats would leak damaging info on Trump from Epstein documents to help Biden win is not countered by a false post stating zero people would care and all Trump voters are 3-time Trump voters. It ought to be hard to neglect smallish swings when we have a decade of small margins in states that decide the electoral college. If that's too difficult of an exchange to understand clearly, then you're going to be entirely hopeless when it comes to more difficult and more nuanced points regarding new but related topics. I want to tailor my replies to posts to me with the understanding and engagement level exhibited by the poster. I'm happy if people decide the discussion should be why Clinton/Biden/Kamala should've won by 500 electoral college votes each, since Trump is morally unfit to be president and there's something psychologically wrong with the electorate each time they don't deliver those victories. Fun discussion. Please have 100 pages of it. For actually winning elections and stopping Trump's extremist policies, I don't want the person that's well-meaning but totally out of touch. I guess they're technically an ally, but pragmatically do more harm than good. Like suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story probably kept Joe from losing narrow swing margins. That wasn't even Joe's kompromat. It was Hunter Biden. Not in the race. Yet people said later if they had known earlier at something like 5% or 10% they might have changed their votes. Even if those people's own assessment of whether they'd change their own votes is unreliable you'd only need ~100k to have flipped key swing margins. Damaging info about Trump re:Epstein, whether it were fire or just smoke being blown up the electorate's ass, definitely would be enough to cover a margin of that size in a reversed situation. Meaning the same cohort who voted for Biden instead of Trump not knowing about the laptop could easily have voted for Biden instead of Trump knowing about "muh files" in some form. Democrats know how stuff like this works. The ones who pushed made-up pee tapes would definitely have the shrewdness to realize that proof or accusations of child rape can sway votes. The idea they held back knowing good old Teflon Don is immune anyway and they'd only be friendly firing Bill Clinton? Don't think the people with their claws on power care about protecting Bill in his retirement. Thank god that Democratic political operatives aren't closer to this forum's mainstream. Republicans with that kind of opposition would go hog-wild, and I'm saying that even in comparison to current day. You might enjoy that, I honestly don't know, but I wouldn't. Confident and sane opposition parties limit the damage of the extremes.
It's a sad day if both candidates write off half the country as the unpersuadables, much less deplorables. I know people wish that scandals swung more voters than they do, but the effort to call these negligible and worth ignoring is downright wrong.
|
On June 04 2026 03:12 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 02:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 04 2026 01:43 dyhb wrote: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. 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." 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. Let's work on the basic understanding first: my post on why Democrats would leak damaging info on Trump from Epstein documents to help Biden win is not countered by a false post stating zero people would care and all Trump voters are 3-time Trump voters. It ought to be hard to neglect smallish swings when we have a decade of small margins in states that decide the electoral college. If that's too difficult of an exchange to understand clearly, then you're going to be entirely hopeless when it comes to more difficult and more nuanced points regarding new but related topics. I want to tailor my replies to posts to me with the understanding and engagement level exhibited by the poster. I'm happy if people decide the discussion should be why Clinton/Biden/Kamala should've won by 500 electoral college votes each, since Trump is morally unfit to be president and there's something psychologically wrong with the electorate each time they don't deliver those victories. Fun discussion. Please have 100 pages of it. For actually winning elections and stopping Trump's extremist policies, I don't want the person that's well-meaning but totally out of touch. I guess they're technically an ally, but pragmatically do more harm than good.
Like suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story probably kept Joe from losing narrow swing margins. That wasn't even Joe's kompromat. It was Hunter Biden. Not in the race. Yet people said later if they had known earlier at something like 5% or 10% they might have changed their votes. Even if those people's own assessment of whether they'd change their own votes is unreliable you'd only need ~100k to have flipped key swing margins. Damaging info about Trump re:Epstein, whether it were fire or just smoke being blown up the electorate's ass, definitely would be enough to cover a margin of that size in a reversed situation. Meaning the same cohort who voted for Biden instead of Trump not knowing about the laptop could easily have voted for Biden instead of Trump knowing about "muh files" in some form.
Democrats know how stuff like this works. The ones who pushed made-up pee tapes would definitely have the shrewdness to realize that proof or accusations of child rape can sway votes. The idea they held back knowing good old Teflon Don is immune anyway and they'd only be friendly firing Bill Clinton? Don't think the people with their claws on power care about protecting Bill in his retirement.
|
The laptop that Rudy Giuliani claimed he found child porn on but waited weeks to turn over to the police would've definitely won the election for Trump.
It actually does bring me a little bit of joy knowing you're still malding over a made-up scandal that actually makes Republicans look even more like child diddlers than they already do. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/mcveRPX.png)
