|
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 23:41 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 23:26 Billyboy wrote:On June 04 2026 23:14 JimmyJRaynor wrote:"you'd be in jail if it weren't for me! ! !", Trump to Netanyahu. ... Shakespeare couldn't write it any better. the good-cop//bad-cop routine Trump and Netanyahu are playing would be hilarious if it didn't involve killing people. Both guys know exactly what is going on ... Trump and Netanyahu both approve of it and they pretend they're disagreeing. LOL. I love how FOX covers this like an NFL game. damn. As long as the stock market holds out Trump will keep on going with military activity in the middle east. On that note, I got another "i told you so" from my wife this week as our 401Ks continue to soar. I've wanted out of the stock market twice in last 3 years. she said we should stay in. we doubled our precious metals holdings though. On June 04 2026 21:48 Acrofales wrote:
Trump raped E. Jean Carroll. He was also good friends with someone who committed suicide when it was completely clear that he was going to be convicted of a bunch of sex-traffic related charges (including minors), and who ran a broad network of influence peddling, apparently in exchange for sexual favors.
I'm sure the known rapist (Trump) was absolutely not involved at all in any way with his close friend's sex parties! And the true pedos are all (1) democrats or (2) princes of the UK. Trump (known rapist) would never just grab any girl by the pussy! He's all about consent! meh, Canada's best PM ever was banging an 18 year old when he was 48. he was prolly banging her when she was 17 as well but the liberal canadian media covered it up. At some undetermined point he was also beating her. I would've voted for him every single time. At that time he was Canada's best option. I'd still vote for Trump now because he is a better option than Kamala. And, I'm not talking about the Ugandan Headhunter ... I'm talking about Kamala Harris. You are an awful human. Not sure why you keep reminding everyone of this fact. And he’s your favourite, not best, it’s subjective not objective. Sometimes I feel sorry for you, but then you post a banger like this and it reminds me that you are just a horrible person. Practically tripping over himself to brag about supporting statutory rape. Mods, is this not a bannable offense for real?
If you actually want an answer to this you have to report it to the mods.
Fair warning though, every time someone in a politics thread hits the report button, 5 panda bears die and seeker gets inches closer to killing the thread.
There's also a US politics feedback thread in the website feedback section where you can discuss it.
|
On June 04 2026 23:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 23:41 LightSpectra wrote:On June 04 2026 23:26 Billyboy wrote:On June 04 2026 23:14 JimmyJRaynor wrote:"you'd be in jail if it weren't for me! ! !", Trump to Netanyahu. ... Shakespeare couldn't write it any better. the good-cop//bad-cop routine Trump and Netanyahu are playing would be hilarious if it didn't involve killing people. Both guys know exactly what is going on ... Trump and Netanyahu both approve of it and they pretend they're disagreeing. LOL. I love how FOX covers this like an NFL game. damn. As long as the stock market holds out Trump will keep on going with military activity in the middle east. On that note, I got another "i told you so" from my wife this week as our 401Ks continue to soar. I've wanted out of the stock market twice in last 3 years. she said we should stay in. we doubled our precious metals holdings though. On June 04 2026 21:48 Acrofales wrote:
Trump raped E. Jean Carroll. He was also good friends with someone who committed suicide when it was completely clear that he was going to be convicted of a bunch of sex-traffic related charges (including minors), and who ran a broad network of influence peddling, apparently in exchange for sexual favors.
I'm sure the known rapist (Trump) was absolutely not involved at all in any way with his close friend's sex parties! And the true pedos are all (1) democrats or (2) princes of the UK. Trump (known rapist) would never just grab any girl by the pussy! He's all about consent! meh, Canada's best PM ever was banging an 18 year old when he was 48. he was prolly banging her when she was 17 as well but the liberal canadian media covered it up. At some undetermined point he was also beating her. I would've voted for him every single time. At that time he was Canada's best option. I'd still vote for Trump now because he is a better option than Kamala. And, I'm not talking about the Ugandan Headhunter ... I'm talking about Kamala Harris. You are an awful human. Not sure why you keep reminding everyone of this fact. And he’s your favourite, not best, it’s subjective not objective. Sometimes I feel sorry for you, but then you post a banger like this and it reminds me that you are just a horrible person. Practically tripping over himself to brag about supporting statutory rape. Mods, is this not a bannable offense for real? no, i do not even support adultery. Trump is a terrible person and still a better option than Kamala. Had there been a better option on the ballet i would've taken it. If Joe Clark were a better option than Pierre Trudeau i would've voted for him. However, a 48 year old guy who was banging an 18 year old was Canada's best option. I'd say you lack historical perspective and you are a prisoner of the moment.
He’s an adulterer and a lot worse. But how about you describe the metrics that make Trump a better option than Kamala. Let’s assume she stayed roughly down Bidens path. So what metric would you point to that Trump has improved?
|
United States44032 Posts
On June 04 2026 23:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 23:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 04 2026 23:31 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 04 2026 23:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 04 2026 22:51 Vivax wrote:On June 04 2026 22:23 farvacola wrote:On June 04 2026 22:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 04 2026 20:37 Velr wrote:
For me personally the one rape that he was allready found guilty for is enough.
After how many rapes do you change your opinion on your prefered political candidates?
I don’t know why you guys are even asking those questions to oblade. If you voted three times for a guy that depraved and that awful and keep supporting him to that day, you either don’t have any moral standards at all or are a terrible a human being yourself. I admire your perseverance, but at some point maybe you can just accept that you are talking to a shitty person, that is happy to vote for a monster, doesn’t care that he raped young women, and doesn’t mind the depravity if he doesn’t actually admires it. Of course it’s terrible news for our democracies, but we might have reached a point where there is nothing to speak about anymore with that other side. I think they have come to the conclusion that we were enemies to be destroyed long ago. To be fair, the fact that folks like you can see that others are still interested in confronting the depraved nonsense has some value. These conversations have always been more about the audience than the participants. There's risks to confronting it. Said depraved nonsense is what very rich or powerful people fed on. I'd rather mind my own business as long as they don't start molesting you, directly or indirectly. I mean, even the cops working that stuff are under tons of pressure, unless they participate in it because it's more convenient or relieves them of danger. The 'solution' was evidently problemmaxing. There are definitely risks, but at least someone can decide to disengage from a conversation if they realize their interlocutor isn't arguing in good faith, or is refusing to acknowledge some fundamental realities, or if they keep changing the subject, or whatever else a person considers to be inappropriate / over a reasonable threshold. And then they can always decide whether it's a good idea to try again with that same person another time, perhaps on a different subject. I like to start with the assumption that it's worth attempting a conversation with most people about most topics, and then take note of exceptions when I come across them, as opposed to starting with the assumption that most conversations, peoples, and topics aren't worth it. In my professional life, I stay away from guys who cheat on their wives entirely. As Warren Buffett said ... "you can't make a good deal with a bad person". I'm surprised how many guys just let it go like its nothing and continue to deal with adulterers on any meaningful level. It is the most sacred promise you will make in your lifetime. The best professional deals I've ever made have been with dedicated family men. In conclusion, I pity the other leaders of the G7 and the nations involved in the current military conflict... because they won't be able to make a good deal with Trump. Okay. Yeah I also think that cheating on one's spouse is terrible. its not my job to pass judgment on any one's ultimate morality. its their choice. i just notice that dealing with those guys is ultra risky. that said , I just love the Ayn Rand line : " every day is judgement day.. and your own ego is the judge" BTW, you probably know i was born and raised in Canada. Let me tell you .. in interviews with US immigration officials and the US Navy I noticed these guys just gobble up all this Ayn Rand stuff. 
Well sure, like Rand they suckle on the government teat.
|
On June 04 2026 23:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 23:31 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 04 2026 23:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 04 2026 22:51 Vivax wrote:On June 04 2026 22:23 farvacola wrote:On June 04 2026 22:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 04 2026 20:37 Velr wrote:
For me personally the one rape that he was allready found guilty for is enough.
After how many rapes do you change your opinion on your prefered political candidates?
I don’t know why you guys are even asking those questions to oblade. If you voted three times for a guy that depraved and that awful and keep supporting him to that day, you either don’t have any moral standards at all or are a terrible a human being yourself. I admire your perseverance, but at some point maybe you can just accept that you are talking to a shitty person, that is happy to vote for a monster, doesn’t care that he raped young women, and doesn’t mind the depravity if he doesn’t actually admires it. Of course it’s terrible news for our democracies, but we might have reached a point where there is nothing to speak about anymore with that other side. I think they have come to the conclusion that we were enemies to be destroyed long ago. To be fair, the fact that folks like you can see that others are still interested in confronting the depraved nonsense has some value. These conversations have always been more about the audience than the participants. There's risks to confronting it. Said depraved nonsense is what very rich or powerful people fed on. I'd rather mind my own business as long as they don't start molesting you, directly or indirectly. I mean, even the cops working that stuff are under tons of pressure, unless they participate in it because it's more convenient or relieves them of danger. The 'solution' was evidently problemmaxing. There are definitely risks, but at least someone can decide to disengage from a conversation if they realize their interlocutor isn't arguing in good faith, or is refusing to acknowledge some fundamental realities, or if they keep changing the subject, or whatever else a person considers to be inappropriate / over a reasonable threshold. And then they can always decide whether it's a good idea to try again with that same person another time, perhaps on a different subject. I like to start with the assumption that it's worth attempting a conversation with most people about most topics, and then take note of exceptions when I come across them, as opposed to starting with the assumption that most conversations, peoples, and topics aren't worth it. In my professional life, I stay away from guys who cheat on their wives entirely. As Warren Buffett said ... "you can't make a good deal with a bad person". I'm surprised how many guys just let it go like its nothing and continue to deal with adulterers on any meaningful level. It is the most sacred promise you will make in your lifetime. The best professional deals I've ever made have been with dedicated family men. In conclusion, I pity the other leaders of the G7 and the nations involved in the current military conflict... because they won't be able to make a good deal with Trump. Okay. Yeah I also think that cheating on one's spouse is terrible.
Yet he think someone who has broken that most important vow over and over again with multiple women is the right trustworthy guy to make the bestest deals for his country.
Just a straight up dum take.
|
Northern Ireland26942 Posts
On June 04 2026 04:50 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 03:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 04 2026 03:23 Introvert wrote: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:
[quote]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. See you are looking at it the wrong way around. There is no formula for getting people to register. Besides, what you want are *votes* not registrations. People will change their vote before they change their party. Like everything it is a combination of things like promising to do what voters want, being someone voters like, and pointing to the other guy as worse. If there was one solution and was not influenced by outside events I suppose we'd have done away with democracy by now. I don't think you'd value my suggestions for the Democratic party lol. My general advice would be to 1) stop taking the wrong side of popular positions (e.g. boys in girls sports, as the framing goes) and B) having a party more capable of internal fights and disagreement. What's (arguably) one reason white Evangelicals go so Republican right now? Because finding an even moderately pro-life Democrat is impossible. Ditto for a host other issues. The Republican party is a much bigger tent policy wise and ideologically. That's my view. There are those that argue that being perceived as moderate is what matters most of all, but I think it's more complicated than that. But being seen as the party of "disagree and you're out/a bad person" is not good for coalition building.
1) Aside from trans panic being a minute, minute issue that’s massively over-amplified Keir Starmer’s administration here (in part due to court rulings) has done about-turns on just that kind of thing.
And, in a more general sense, Keir Starmer’s entire shtick is that he’s a moderate, with a track record in public service, and that he wrested Labour back from crazy lefties.
The end result? He never started out as Mr Popular, and has been haemorrhaging support ever since.
Hell even the hot button immigration issue. Labour have cut that appreciable for the first time and years, for little gain.
B) Having a party more open to disagreement? The wider left can’t simultaneously be (rightly) criticised for endless infighting and in-factions, but be not open to disagreement. I’d contend there’s plenty of diversity there too, and it’s not merely theoretical. There is plenty with American conservatism too, even if it’s heavily subsumed by devotion to the Dear Leader.
I draw attention to Starmer and the UK because the kind of blueprint you’re talking about, albeit in a different context is the exact blueprint that he and his team crafted and followed, and well, outside of winning an almost unlosable election, it hasn’t worked. Hence why people think a turnout-driving strategy based on your existing strengths may be the play.
By want of a crude analogy, and actually quite topical, let’s look at a hypothetical StarCraft patch. Blizz wants to boost its numbers, and it’s noticed a lot of people saying ‘I stopped playing because of x, if they changed that I’d come back’, so Blizz make those changes and a bunch of those people dont come back anyway. And as a downside a bunch of people who liked the game as it is stopped playing, because they liked how it was, so it ends up being a negative result
Obviously there are ways to do both simultaneously, but it proves difficult. It’s the old too short duvet, you can cover your feet or your chest, but not both.
Sidestepping other elections which are a bit different, talking purely Presidentials for a second. What does the swing voter who would either vote Trump, or go third party/not vote, if only the Dems didn’t do x or y? What does that look like and how do you court them without aggravating your existing base?
They aren’t unicorns, they do exist, but in appreciable number to make it worth your while?
It’s also important to remember that people well, lie. We’re seeing that in the UK right now. You can give them what they say they want, but it doesn’t have the desired effect because it isn’t what they actually want.
Someone may say ‘I just want sensible immigration reform, reasonable standards for visa grants and more stringent control on deportations.’ Which yeah, fine, I think reasonable, and many do hold that position.
If you do that, to some degree and what they actually want is less brown folks of any kind coming in, they’re not gonna thank you for it and they’re still gonna support the further right party on that topic they think that will.
As I alluded to earlier, I’m talking Presidentials here, I think we see different dynamics in Senate or Gubernatorial races to various degrees for example. I don’t think they’re quite as subject to quite quite the things I was mentioning.
But my contention is polarisation really squeezes out the genuine moderate/independent to such a degree it’s difficult to pursue them without doing other political damage.
To flip this on its head, what would the GOP need to do to grab the vote of a moderate/independent whatever who’s gone Dem the last couple times?
|
On June 05 2026 00:38 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 23:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 04 2026 23:31 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 04 2026 23:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 04 2026 22:51 Vivax wrote:On June 04 2026 22:23 farvacola wrote:On June 04 2026 22:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 04 2026 20:37 Velr wrote:
For me personally the one rape that he was allready found guilty for is enough.
After how many rapes do you change your opinion on your prefered political candidates?
I don’t know why you guys are even asking those questions to oblade. If you voted three times for a guy that depraved and that awful and keep supporting him to that day, you either don’t have any moral standards at all or are a terrible a human being yourself. I admire your perseverance, but at some point maybe you can just accept that you are talking to a shitty person, that is happy to vote for a monster, doesn’t care that he raped young women, and doesn’t mind the depravity if he doesn’t actually admires it. Of course it’s terrible news for our democracies, but we might have reached a point where there is nothing to speak about anymore with that other side. I think they have come to the conclusion that we were enemies to be destroyed long ago. To be fair, the fact that folks like you can see that others are still interested in confronting the depraved nonsense has some value. These conversations have always been more about the audience than the participants. There's risks to confronting it. Said depraved nonsense is what very rich or powerful people fed on. I'd rather mind my own business as long as they don't start molesting you, directly or indirectly. I mean, even the cops working that stuff are under tons of pressure, unless they participate in it because it's more convenient or relieves them of danger. The 'solution' was evidently problemmaxing. There are definitely risks, but at least someone can decide to disengage from a conversation if they realize their interlocutor isn't arguing in good faith, or is refusing to acknowledge some fundamental realities, or if they keep changing the subject, or whatever else a person considers to be inappropriate / over a reasonable threshold. And then they can always decide whether it's a good idea to try again with that same person another time, perhaps on a different subject. I like to start with the assumption that it's worth attempting a conversation with most people about most topics, and then take note of exceptions when I come across them, as opposed to starting with the assumption that most conversations, peoples, and topics aren't worth it. In my professional life, I stay away from guys who cheat on their wives entirely. As Warren Buffett said ... "you can't make a good deal with a bad person". I'm surprised how many guys just let it go like its nothing and continue to deal with adulterers on any meaningful level. It is the most sacred promise you will make in your lifetime. The best professional deals I've ever made have been with dedicated family men. In conclusion, I pity the other leaders of the G7 and the nations involved in the current military conflict... because they won't be able to make a good deal with Trump. Okay. Yeah I also think that cheating on one's spouse is terrible. Yet he think someone who has broken that most important vow over and over again with multiple women is the right trustworthy guy to make the bestest deals for his country. Just a straight up dum take.
I also don't think it's the best look for JJR to reply to "Trump is a rapist" with "Meh", especially while detailing the importance of being a moral person.
|
On June 04 2026 15:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys have so much patience it’s kind of unbelievable.
I suppose you could call it that.
Once upon a time the consensus was that spamming up the thread shitposting with bad-faith right wingers was bad. Now it's supposedly some heroic community service or whatever.
I suppose I should just go back to doing it too.
|
On June 05 2026 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 15:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys have so much patience it’s kind of unbelievable. I suppose you could call it that. Once upon a time the consensus was that spamming up the thread shitposting with bad-faith right wingers was bad. Now it's supposedly some heroic community service or whatever. I suppose I should just go back to doing it too.
Do you anticipate that people will criticize you for this post? Just curious. I feel that they might.
|
Northern Ireland26942 Posts
On June 05 2026 01:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2026 15:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys have so much patience it’s kind of unbelievable. I suppose you could call it that. Once upon a time the consensus was that spamming up the thread shitposting with bad-faith right wingers was bad. Now it's supposedly some heroic community service or whatever. I suppose I should just go back to doing it too. Do you anticipate that people will criticize you for this post? Just curious. I feel that they might.
Criticise? Moi?
I mean we’re not sitting on the like Unified Senate of Earth or something. Some like to discuss ideas, some like to simply vent about how idiotic x is as a cathartic exercise. It’s almost like it’s a specific sub-thread in a forum initially formed around a game. A game incidentally that according to lazy Chat GPTing, 4 billion people have come into existence after said game released
|
United States44032 Posts
On June 05 2026 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2026 15:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys have so much patience it’s kind of unbelievable. I suppose you could call it that. Once upon a time the consensus was that spamming up the thread shitposting with bad-faith right wingers was bad. Now it's supposedly some heroic community service or whatever. I suppose I should just go back to doing it too.
GH: People shouldn’t indulge bad-faith right wing shitposters
Also GH: People should indulge me
Is anyone going to say anything or are we just going to let that one linger unremarked on?
|
Northern Ireland26942 Posts
On June 05 2026 01:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2026 15:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys have so much patience it’s kind of unbelievable. I suppose you could call it that. Once upon a time the consensus was that spamming up the thread shitposting with bad-faith right wingers was bad. Now it's supposedly some heroic community service or whatever. I suppose I should just go back to doing it too. GH: People shouldn’t indulge bad-faith right wing shitposters Also GH: People should indulge me Is anyone going to say anything or are we just going to let that one linger unremarked on?
I think I said my piece a few pages back in that regard. Nothing something I’d especially recommend people seeking out given it was a barely coherent rant but hey.
I know this isn’t how actual DnD stats work, but he’s got pretty good stats in argumentation, think the lad can make a good point. But it’s completely invalidated with a combined 20 in condescension and piety
He’s stubbornly just refusing to reroll for a slightly more balanced character sheet despite every other and the GM imploring him to for the sake of this campaign
|
On June 05 2026 01:48 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 01:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 05 2026 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2026 15:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys have so much patience it’s kind of unbelievable. I suppose you could call it that. Once upon a time the consensus was that spamming up the thread shitposting with bad-faith right wingers was bad. Now it's supposedly some heroic community service or whatever. I suppose I should just go back to doing it too. Do you anticipate that people will criticize you for this post? Just curious. I feel that they might. Criticise? Moi? I mean we’re not sitting on the like Unified Senate of Earth or something. Some like to discuss ideas, some like to simply vent about how idiotic x is as a cathartic exercise. It’s almost like it’s a specific sub-thread in a forum initially formed around a game. A game incidentally that according to lazy Chat GPTing, 4 billion people have come into existence after said game released
Assault and battery may lead to jail time...
and rape and fraud may lead to becoming president...
but mocking and gawking are punishable by DEATH.
|
Northern Ireland26942 Posts
On June 05 2026 02:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 01:48 WombaT wrote:On June 05 2026 01:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 05 2026 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2026 15:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys have so much patience it’s kind of unbelievable. I suppose you could call it that. Once upon a time the consensus was that spamming up the thread shitposting with bad-faith right wingers was bad. Now it's supposedly some heroic community service or whatever. I suppose I should just go back to doing it too. Do you anticipate that people will criticize you for this post? Just curious. I feel that they might. Criticise? Moi? I mean we’re not sitting on the like Unified Senate of Earth or something. Some like to discuss ideas, some like to simply vent about how idiotic x is as a cathartic exercise. It’s almost like it’s a specific sub-thread in a forum initially formed around a game. A game incidentally that according to lazy Chat GPTing, 4 billion people have come into existence after said game released Assault and battery may lead to jail time... and rape and fraud may lead to becoming president... but mocking and gawking are punishable by DEATH.
Mocking and gawking will lead to death, although specifically mine if I actually played my drinking game where I take a shot every time that exact phrase is used
|
On June 05 2026 01:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2026 15:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys have so much patience it’s kind of unbelievable. I suppose you could call it that. Once upon a time the consensus was that spamming up the thread shitposting with bad-faith right wingers was bad. Now it's supposedly some heroic community service or whatever. I suppose I should just go back to doing it too. Do you anticipate that people will criticize you for this post? Just curious. I feel that they might.
Pretty much any post other than shitposting about MAGA and associates (if they choose to acknowledge it).
I think there's value in having someone critical of Democrats from their left rather than simply adding another body to the shitposting dogpiles though. There, but for the grace of God, go I
|
"Right-wing capitalists were caught running and covering up an underage sex trafficking ring" is a scandal that any socialist since the birth of the ideology would salivate over, its rhetorical value is beyond anyone's wildest hopes & dreams in terms of discrediting capitalism. So our resident totally-left-wing-no-really-I-mean-it wants us to stop talking about it. Makes sense.
|
On June 05 2026 02:15 LightSpectra wrote:
"Right-wing capitalists were caught running and covering up an underage sex trafficking ring" is a scandal that any socialist since the birth of the ideology would salivate over, its rhetorical value is beyond anyone's wildest hopes in dreams in terms of discrediting capitalism. So our resident totally-left-wing-no-really-I-mean-it wants us to stop talking about it. Makes sense.
Most socialist would just say "capitalists were caught running and covering up an underage sex trafficking ring again."
They may add "Basically none of the actually powerful people involved will truly be held accountable regardless of which faction of the capitalist uniparty takes power".
They may continue:
"I can begin to demonstrate this by pointing out no one that plans on voting Democrat believes they will use that power to hold the massive criminal enterprise that is the Trump administration to even a superficial level of accountability. I doubt they could even commit to making promising they'll do it a requirement of people they'll support."
That the people that I believe sincerely want Trump and his cronies to be held accountable for their rampant corruption and misdeeds can already say with confidence that even a promise for such accountability isn't a requirement (even if they would ultimately back down and vote/support blue no matter who) is at the core of why the US is on a self-destructive path to chaos.
|
On June 05 2026 02:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 01:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 05 2026 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2026 15:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys have so much patience it’s kind of unbelievable. I suppose you could call it that. Once upon a time the consensus was that spamming up the thread shitposting with bad-faith right wingers was bad. Now it's supposedly some heroic community service or whatever. I suppose I should just go back to doing it too. Do you anticipate that people will criticize you for this post? Just curious. I feel that they might. Pretty much any post other than shitposting about MAGA and associates (if they choose to acknowledge it). I think there's value in having someone critical of Democrats from their left rather than simply adding another body to the shitposting dogpiles though. There, but for the grace of God, go I
I don't disagree with this; I don't think this is necessarily a bad or silly thing.
|
On June 05 2026 02:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 02:15 LightSpectra wrote:
"Right-wing capitalists were caught running and covering up an underage sex trafficking ring" is a scandal that any socialist since the birth of the ideology would salivate over, its rhetorical value is beyond anyone's wildest hopes in dreams in terms of discrediting capitalism. So our resident totally-left-wing-no-really-I-mean-it wants us to stop talking about it. Makes sense. Most socialist would just say "capitalists were caught running and covering up an underage sex trafficking ring again." They may add "Basically none of the actually powerful people involved will truly be held accountable regardless of which faction of the capitalist uniparty takes power". They may continue: "I can begin to demonstrate this by pointing out no one that plans on voting Democrat believes they will use that power to hold the massive criminal enterprise that is the Trump administration to even a superficial level of accountability. I doubt they could even commit to making promising they'll do it a requirement of people they'll support." That the people that I believe sincerely want Trump and his cronies to be held accountable for their rampant corruption and misdeeds can already say with confidence that even a promise for such accountability isn't a requirement (even if they would ultimately back down and vote/support blue no matter who) is at the core of why the US is on a self-destructive path to chaos.
Cool, back to "both parties are the same and switching between them changes nothing". I would almost respect that as a position if you were consistent about that, instead of flip-flopping between this and "I am advocate of non-reformist reforms and those involve elections, like primarying Democrats". The reason the "mock and gawk" spam is such a joke is partially because you pick one of those mutually contradictory positions and run with it until pressed too closely or you get bored, then you switch to the other one.
|
On June 05 2026 01:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2026 15:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys have so much patience it’s kind of unbelievable. I suppose you could call it that. Once upon a time the consensus was that spamming up the thread shitposting with bad-faith right wingers was bad. Now it's supposedly some heroic community service or whatever. I suppose I should just go back to doing it too. GH: People shouldn’t indulge bad-faith right wing shitposters Also GH: People should indulge me Is anyone going to say anything or are we just going to let that one linger unremarked on?
Ignoring is the best policy, nothing good comes from engaging as basically everyone has found out. Just throw out the occasional witty retort when the mood strikes you but actual engagement always ends the same.
On June 05 2026 02:45 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 02:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2026 02:15 LightSpectra wrote:
"Right-wing capitalists were caught running and covering up an underage sex trafficking ring" is a scandal that any socialist since the birth of the ideology would salivate over, its rhetorical value is beyond anyone's wildest hopes in dreams in terms of discrediting capitalism. So our resident totally-left-wing-no-really-I-mean-it wants us to stop talking about it. Makes sense. Most socialist would just say "capitalists were caught running and covering up an underage sex trafficking ring again." They may add "Basically none of the actually powerful people involved will truly be held accountable regardless of which faction of the capitalist uniparty takes power". They may continue: "I can begin to demonstrate this by pointing out no one that plans on voting Democrat believes they will use that power to hold the massive criminal enterprise that is the Trump administration to even a superficial level of accountability. I doubt they could even commit to making promising they'll do it a requirement of people they'll support." That the people that I believe sincerely want Trump and his cronies to be held accountable for their rampant corruption and misdeeds can already say with confidence that even a promise for such accountability isn't a requirement (even if they would ultimately back down and vote/support blue no matter who) is at the core of why the US is on a self-destructive path to chaos. Cool, back to "both parties are the same and switching between them changes nothing". I would almost respect that as a position if you were consistent about that, instead of flip-flopping between this and "I am advocate of non-reformist reforms and those involve elections, like primarying Democrats". The reason the "mock and gawk" spam is such a joke is partially because you pick one of those mutually contradictory positions and run with it until pressed too closely or you get bored, then you switch to the other one.
Don’t forget about his own mocking and gawking posts. It’s much like how he’s complicit in American genocide more than most he accuses PLUS activity Denys ongoing genocides that put a damper on his world view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
