EPTOn August 07 2026 01:00 oBlade wrote:
Good now say fish live in the Pacific Ocean, and in the Atlantic Ocean, and do penance for ignoring freshwater fish everywhere. The implication is NOT you're an irrational person who doesn't know fish live in the Pacific Ocean. I'm not saying there's a single piece of evidence you ever said fish don't live in the Pacific Ocean. It's just a good faith test to clear your name, I'm your friend. Let me know when you're tired of saying true sentences. (If you miss any of these, Jankisa is ready to toxically spam that you are a far right racist fascist bootlicking Stormfront Nazi cult member with blood on your hands anyway. Maybe you prefer he just get stuck on the asinine fish question and crash out there. Understand?)
Good now say fish live in the Pacific Ocean, and in the Atlantic Ocean, and do penance for ignoring freshwater fish everywhere. The implication is NOT you're an irrational person who doesn't know fish live in the Pacific Ocean. I'm not saying there's a single piece of evidence you ever said fish don't live in the Pacific Ocean. It's just a good faith test to clear your name, I'm your friend. Let me know when you're tired of saying true sentences. (If you miss any of these, Jankisa is ready to toxically spam that you are a far right racist fascist bootlicking Stormfront Nazi cult member with blood on your hands anyway. Maybe you prefer he just get stuck on the asinine fish question and crash out there. Understand?)
Some fish do live in the Atlantic and the Pacific ocean, you're right about that. I won't do penance for not mentioning that before because the subject of whether they lived in Oceans didn't come up before now.
I'm not sure I get the point you' re trying to make. I have no problem saying true sentences as long as they are used in the debate somehow. If your point is that you're going to keep asking me to say true statements until I get bored, I fail to see how that's relevant to the conversation. No one flooded you with multiple questions, as far as I can tell there was only Jankisa that wanted to know whether you acknowledged that Biden won the 2020 election and myself who asked you to say whether you thought Trump was a liar. Doesn't seem difficult to answer.
The reason I ask this question is because I'm geniunely not sure if you think that Trump is a liar. It's not a gotcha. You have many stances that are extremely far right/MAGA and it's hard to tell if you are aware that Trump lies constantly.
This whole conversation for me started with this statement:
On June 24 2026 14:19 Geiko wrote:
It's hard to grasp for some maga americans but it's not about the pool, it's about the blatant corruption and then the tripling down on obvious lies.
It's hard to grasp for some maga americans but it's not about the pool, it's about the blatant corruption and then the tripling down on obvious lies.
So I've always tried to separate the two subjects (corruption and lying) even though you seem to always want to bunch them up together. Now at first you wouldn't acknowledge the fact that Trump lied, now that ample evidence has been brought to light that he was indeed "tripling down on obvious lies", I'd like to close that subject where we can all agree that Trump is a liar. I said your sentences about the fishes, can you do me the courtesy of saying "Ok, I agree that Trump is a liar". You can even add "in this instance" if it makes you feel better.
On August 07 2026 01:00 oBlade wrote:
So we have a deadlock where we can't know what the fair price is because it wasn't bid, but we can't know if bidding was skipped on purpose to achieve unfair enrichment without knowing whether the price is unfair. This is obnoxious because in previous waffling you said no-bid contracts aren't necessarily corrupt. Yet it's inherent to all no-bid contracts that you didn't arrive at the price the way you are now sarcastically saying is necessary. Whether something's corrupt can't depend on "the feeling."
The price is anyway not completely uninformed, there is external info. For example,your LLMyou mentioned 4 contractors that the government could have used, before. How much do they charge for similar jobs, and can you scale it to the Reflecting Pool? There have been articles and articles of people making the same complaints you are now. There's no numbers to go with this? You haven't even theorycrafted something. Government cost overrun averages, say, ~20% so if you have some actual way to show it should have cost less than $12.5 million to start in April and finish before July I'm happy to admit the government was slightly ripped off. Wouldn't you like that? Me saying one of your rhetorical passwords? But as scant as all your evidence is, what's more likely to make me think we were ripped off is if the redo repair under warranty finishing in a few days is also defective in some way. Or if the company goes bankrupt while repeatedly trying to fix the blue lining, like if the pool's condition makes it structurally futile to even try.
So we have a deadlock where we can't know what the fair price is because it wasn't bid, but we can't know if bidding was skipped on purpose to achieve unfair enrichment without knowing whether the price is unfair. This is obnoxious because in previous waffling you said no-bid contracts aren't necessarily corrupt. Yet it's inherent to all no-bid contracts that you didn't arrive at the price the way you are now sarcastically saying is necessary. Whether something's corrupt can't depend on "the feeling."
The price is anyway not completely uninformed, there is external info. For example,
Now regarding the corruption, we can agree that whatever the "real" market price for the works that have been done is, it's probably lower than what the US are paying for at the moment. Mathematically, it's "lower or equal". Practically, it would be a fucking coincidence if out of all the contractors in the US, we happened to find by chance the one that would do it for the lowest amount. So it seems obvious to me that whenever a no-bid contract is granted, the US is losing money because somewhere out there, another company could probably have done it for cheaper. That's why these no-bid contracts have strict rules. These rules were, according to me, broken as the government failed to justify "unusual and compelling urgency". You think the urgency is justified, you seem to think it was impossible to plan a couple of months ahead and so the government losing money on a no-bid contract is justified. I guess we disagree on that point and maybe it's best to leave it as is.
